Death Penalty

[Ender]

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption.

I don’t think the catechism asserts this. This is an assumption made typically by those who oppose capital punishment but it is a mistake to suggest the catechism supports such an idea.

Ender

 

[adawgj]

Definitely not the death penalty.

It’s very expensive and it goes against being pro life and the Hippocratic Oath.

 

[dudleysharp]

Definitely not the death penalty.

It’s very expensive and it goes against being pro life and the Hippocratic Oath.

Reconsider:

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

======

For 2000 years Catholic death penalty support has been based upon the sanctity of life, clearly a pro life position, as restated within the most recent CCC 2260

Pro Life: The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/01/pro-life-death-penalty.html

======

The Hippocratic Oath and “Do No Harm” have nothing to do with executions
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

 

[dudleysharp]

I don’t think the catechism asserts this. This is an assumption made typically by those who oppose capital punishment but it is a mistake to suggest the catechism supports such an idea.

Ender

The CCC is specifically saying that we must us a sanction “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”., in specific reference to the death penalty, meaning execution “takes away from (the unjust aggressor) the possibility of redeeming himself”.

I would be happy to hear what you believe the CCC is saying.

 

[dudleysharp]

The first objective is to determine what penalty is commensurate with the severity of the crime. That is what makes a punishment just. A second consideration would be whether the punishment should be mitigated because of particular circumstances. The first would be addressed by legal statutes, the second would be the responsibility of the judge.

What I have been arguing is the first part: that capital punishment is the just penalty for the crime of murder. I believe JPII, BXVI, and FI were concerned with the second consideration, the particular circumstances that (in their opinion) make it inadvisable.

Ender

This may be slightly out of your context.

The first objective is to determine guilt or innocence.

Both mitigation and justice are the province of both the statutes and are considerations at trial by judge and/or jury and in appeals.

It is interesting to note that “defense of society” or whether or not the murderer harming again is rare or practically none existent is very rarely a statutory concern.

Ironically, it is a consideration in Texas, the leader in executions.

In Texas, the jury is required to consider “future dangerousness” of the unjust aggressor, thereby being one of the very few states that does use the CCC condition and is the leader in executions.

Interesting, huh?

 

[dudleysharp]

I don’t think the catechism asserts this. This is an assumption made typically by those who oppose capital punishment but it is a mistake to suggest the catechism supports such an idea.

Ender

The CCC is specifically saying that we must us a sanction “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”., in specific reference to the death penalty, meaning execution “takes away from (the unjust aggressor) the possibility of redeeming himself”.

I would be happy to hear what you believe the CCC is saying.

I concede that many are confused by many of the writings within the CCC, another of many problems.

 

[Ender]

It is interesting to note that “defense of society” or whether or not the murderer harming again is rare or practically none existent is very rarely a statutory concern. Ironically, it is a consideration in Texas, the leader in executions.

It would be interesting to read some of those deliberations about the danger a criminal posed to society. I would be quite interested in learning what was considered and why capital punishment was decided on versus LWOP.

The CCC is specifically saying that we must use a sanction “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”., in specific reference to the death penalty, meaning execution “takes away from (the unjust aggressor) the possibility of redeeming himself”.

Ummm… I had pretty much passed over that clause without giving it any thought. Well, we already knew there were problems with 2267, what’s one more?

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

But how do you propose that the death penalty would cure that? Would it be based not on the crime the person committed to end up in prison but on another court within the prison that ordered the death penalty for all gang leaders? It’s conceivable that many of these prisoners were in for crimes that didn’t warrant the dp in the first place.

That’s what makes me wonder why people say that recidivism would be cured by the dp. That would surely require killing all violent offenders and prisoners across the board in anticipation of further crime.

It goes to the absurdity of the CCC saying such cases are rare if not practically non existent.

Execution pretty much ends harming again. You may have seen this:

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

 

[Ender]

That’s what makes me wonder why people say that recidivism would be cured by the dp. That would surely require killing all violent offenders and prisoners across the board in anticipation of further crime.

Interestingly, if the use of the death penalty was determined by a concern for future crime - which is what 2267 suggests - and if it was determined that prison was insufficient to provide the necessary safety, then it is 2267 itself that would argue for more executions.

It is only justice that would prevent its use from being greatly expanded.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Interestingly, if the use of the death penalty was determined by a concern for future crime - which is what 2267 suggests - and if it was determined that prison was insufficient to provide the necessary safety, then it is 2267 itself that would argue for more executions.

It is only justice that would prevent its use from being greatly expanded.

Ender

Odd the anti death penalty folks haven’t discovered that, yet. Well they have.

I don’t think that you realize the moral extreme of that movement.

It is based upon doing anything to save murderers lives, no matter the cost, including the cost of many more innocents murdered.

Please review:

The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html

 

[dudleysharp]

It would be interesting to read some of those deliberations about the danger a criminal posed to society. I would be quite interested in learning what was considered and why capital punishment was decided on versus LWOP.
Ummm… I had pretty much passed over that clause without giving it any thought. Well, we already knew there were problems with 2267, what’s one more?

Ender

There could not have been such deliberations. Why?

The evidence is overwhelming that innocents are better protected with the death penalty and that criminal justice systems allow murderers and other unjust aggressors, of the worst kind, to harm and murder, over and over, again, in complete contradicton to the infamous “very rare if not practically non existent.” from CCC.

It just tales a 1 minutes Google search, as I have, repeatedly demonstrated.

Therefore, the Church had no such deliberations or She and SPJPII just decided to ignore well known reality.

If you have another explanation, please present it.

What is so astonishing and incomprehensible, is that the Church was in the middle of one of the worst moral travesties in Her history, the priestly sex scandal, wherein sexual predator priests were allowed to harm over and over again, demonstrating no limit to human error, as we all known.

It had no impact on the Church deliberations, at all, on murderers and unjust aggressors harming, repeatedly.

None.

Grotesque and astounding . . . unless you can come up with another explanation.

 

[Ender]

There could not have been such deliberations.

I meant the deliberations by the juries in Texas regarding the danger some felons presented and using those conclusions to determine whether to impose capital punishment. I would like to know the criteria they used to make that determination.

What is so astonishing and incomprehensible, is that the Church was in the middle of one of the worst moral travesties in Her history, the priestly sex scandal, wherein sexual predator priests were allowed to harm over and over again, demonstrating no limit to human error, as we all known.

These are two separate and distinct issues; neither has any relation to the other.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

I meant the deliberations by the juries in Texas regarding the danger some felons presented and using those conclusions to determine whether to impose capital punishment. I would like to know the criteria they used to make that determination.

These are two separate and distinct issues; neither has any relation to the other.

Ender

Sorry.

Anything can be used for future dangerousness, which must be proven by the state, in the eyes of the jury.

My point stands, that both EV and CCC had no consideration as to the re-offense probabilities for unjust aggressors.

They couldn’t have and found that "re-offense was rare if not practically non existent’, . . . if you would care to address.

 

[Ender]

Anything can be used for future dangerousness, which must be proven by the state, in the eyes of the jury.

My point stands, that both EV and CCC had no consideration as to the re-offense probabilities for unjust aggressors.

They couldn’t have and found that "re-offense was rare if not practically non existent’, . . . if you would care to address.

What I want to see are some of the deliberations made by Texas juries/judges on exactly this issue: how comfortable are we that incarcerating this particular person will prevent him from causing future harm? The church may not have made such a study but it appears to be an ongoing responsibility in Texas. What have they found? What were their arguments for and against the application of capital punishment in particular cases?

If you make the argument that, contra CCC 2267, imprisonment is an insufficient protection against recidivism, it would be useful to have some case studies to evaluate. It appears that Texas has frequently made just such analyses as you’ve been complaining the church failed to make. Don’t you think it would be useful to know what they found?

Ender

 

[adawgj]

Reconsider:

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

======

For 2000 years Catholic death penalty support has been based upon the sanctity of life, clearly a pro life position, as restated within the most recent CCC 2260

Pro Life: The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/01/pro-life-death-penalty.html

======

The Hippocratic Oath and “Do No Harm” have nothing to do with executions
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html

At first I didn’t realize you actually wrote those blog articles.

However it does not change my views on the death penalty.
In a video I watched on the death penalty, Fr. Gregory J. O’Meara, SJ who is a lawyer and also was a prosecutor of Jefrey Dahmer said that the death penalty, at least in his state costs $2 million per execution. That’s a lot of money that could be going to something better than death. Fr. O’Meara is also against the death penalty.

Being pro life and supporting the death penalty is still contradictory. One should promote life in all circumstances than just abortion. How can one support killing criminals and support not killing fetuses. The death penalty is a revenge form of justice and many people on death row are later found innocent. The death penalty doesn’t allow reconciliation for criminals.

The death penalty still goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Numerous Medical associations don’t approve of lethal injection because it is too painful.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP

If you make the argument that, contra CCC 2267, imprisonment is an insufficient protection against recidivism, it would be useful to have some case studies to evaluate. It appears that Texas has frequently made just such analyses as you’ve been complaining the church failed to make. Don’t you think it would be useful to know what they found?

Ender

There are almost countless studies on this, nearly all from an anti death penalty bias.

GOOGLE - “future dangerousness” Texas “death penalty”

Nearly all seem to dismiss the well known reality that past performance is an indicator of future performance.

As you know, many of these murder cases are truly horrific and the case is easy to make that many of these rapist/torturer/premeditated/well planned/mass/serial murderers will always remain a future danger, until dead.

 

[dudleysharp]

At first I didn’t realize you actually wrote those blog articles.

However it does not change my views on the death penalty.

In a video I watched on the death penalty, Fr. Gregory J. O’Meara, SJ who is a lawyer and also was a prosecutor of Jefrey Dahmer said that the death penalty, at least in his state costs $2 million per execution. That’s a lot of money that could be going to something better than death. Fr. O’Meara is also against the death penalty.

Being pro life and supporting the death penalty is still contradictory. One should promote life in all circumstances than just abortion. How can one support killing criminals and support not killing fetuses. The death penalty is a revenge form of justice and many people on death row are later found innocent. The death penalty doesn’t allow reconciliation for criminals.

The death penalty still goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Numerous Medical associations don’t approve of lethal injection because it is too painful.

Only you can change your mind on the death penalty, as I did mine.

My points were that you were inaccurate on all the facts. Occasionally, that makes some people reconsider their positions.

My educated guess is that Fr. O’Meara blindly accepted what he was told and did not fact check any of the studies, as I did. Did you review?

The state where Dahmer was tried does not have the death penalty. So what state are you speaking of, regarding O’Meara’s cost claim?

You cannot contradict my detailed position as to why the death penalty is pro life and why the Church has viewed it as such for 2000 years. You may have a different opinion, but you certainly cannot erase my detailed position.

As I factually showed and you cannot rebut, the Hippocratic Oath does not prohibit the death penalty - period. Did you read it? The HO rejects both euthanasia and abortions, not executions.

As all Christian Churches teach - we all die because of our sins and we all have the opportunity to reconcile with God, prior to that death, regardless of what that death might be. You are stating that such is untrue. You cannot make that case, unless you assert that God is wrong. Do you?

Lethal injection. Too painful? Really? What medical associations oppose lethal injections on those grounds? Please produce those documents. You won’t find them or produce them.

No “Botched” Execution - Arizona (or Ohio)
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/08/no-botched-execution-arizona-or-ohio.html

 

[Ender]

There are almost countless studies on this, nearly all from an anti death penalty bias.

GOOGLE - “future dangerousness” Texas “death penalty”

Nearly all seem to dismiss the well known reality that past performance is an indicator of future performance.

I did the search you suggested and found this statement at the Death Penalty Information Center:In Texas, the determination of who lives and who dies is based on predictions of future dangerousness that have been renounced as unreliable and without scientific validity by the leading mental health associations
What makes this interesting is that it is precisely this type of evaluation that the catechism says is necessary to make in determining whether capital punishment should be used. The catechism says we have to make this determination while the DPIC says it is impossible to do it with any degree of accuracy. Given that both sources oppose capital punishment, their contrary positions on this point surely indicates a problem.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

I did the search you suggested and found this statement at the Death Penalty Information Center:In Texas, the determination of who lives and who dies is based on predictions of future dangerousness that have been renounced as unreliable and without scientific validity by the leading mental health associations
What makes this interesting is that it is precisely this type of evaluation that the catechism says is necessary to make in determining whether capital punishment should be used. The catechism says we have to make this determination while the DPIC says it is impossible to do it with any degree of accuracy. Given that both sources oppose capital punishment, their contrary positions on this point surely indicates a problem.

Ender

Mental health evaluations have often fallen short.

As the US recidivism rate is, at least, 80% within 5 years of prison release, we know such predictions are, considerably better than indicated.