Death Penalty

[bolinstephen]

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

If the only two ways of protecting others from the aggressor are solitary confinement and the death penalty, which should be preferred?

 

[LongingSoul]

If the only two ways of protecting others from the aggressor are solitary confinement and the death penalty, which should be preferred?

I would imagine that someone deemed to warrant permanent solitary confinement would be considered to have some kind of mental illness and should be treated in a psychiatric prison facility that would cope with that. So definitely not the death penalty.

I imagine that the CCC statement envisioned some extreme situation like trying to contain Osama bin Laden in prison, as constituting an impossible situation that might ultimately warrant an intention to execute.

 

[bolinstephen]

I imagine that the CCC statement envisioned some extreme situation like trying to contain Osama bin Laden in prison, as constituting an impossible situation that might ultimately warrant an intention to execute.

Let’s imagine we had Osama bin Laden in prison. What would make him such an extreme case as to warrant an execution?

I know what he did is evil and he certainly deserved to die. But we don’t kill everyone who deserves to die.

To clarify my original question: from what I have heard about solitary is that it is such a cruel form of punishment that it changes a person for the worse.* It exaggerates the evil qualities of a man and it does much harm to a person’s mental state. If the only way to protect the public from a man is to put him in solitary, would it not be more merciful to kill him?**

• The prison system was originally taken from the monastic system. If a criminal was to be taken from society for a time, and all of the influences that caused him to commit a crime, and he spent time alone with God, perhaps that man could be rehabilitated. The issue with our prison system today is that God is taken out of the picture and criminals are influences by other criminals and get worse. Not all solitary is bad— but the way solitary confinement is carried out in this county has the above stated effects.

** Also in America, the death penalty is carried out in a racist, and unjust way. I am not advocating for the death penalty in this county for that reason and many others. This question is an intellectual and philosophic exercise for moral clarification. Only if we have frank and open discussions about the criminal justice system can we improve.

 

[CarmelJerome]

What if there were a specific monastic order whose task was to keep custody of murderers so that they would be deprived of the sort of society which would feed their certainty of feeling justified or entitled to take life?

 

[Ender]

I know what he did is evil and he certainly deserved to die. But we don’t kill everyone who deserves to die.

Treating people as they deserve to be treated is the essence of justice. What is the argument that someone who deserves execution should in fact not receive it?

Also in America, the death penalty is carried out in a racist, and unjust way.

This is often alleged but there is no more evidence to support it than there was to support the allegation that “the man” allowed the levees to collapse in New Orleans during Katrina to destroy black neighborhoods.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Let’s imagine we had Osama bin Laden in prison. What would make him such an extreme case as to warrant an execution?

I know what he did is evil and he certainly deserved to die. But we don’t kill everyone who deserves to die.

The reality of that person was that to imprison him was going to make the US and west, targets of his devotees violent, insane, terror. He was not a person that could be contained without causing danger to the public. As it was, his body was disposed of far out to sea to prevent his burial place becoming a shrine to his ‘martyrdom’. I doubt the US government had the slightest intention of bringing him out alive. The intention would have been to execute and dispose of his body expediently.

That would constitute the ‘special commission’ that St Augustine explained when writing on the death penalty. As for having the death penalty written into general law, that is what is being rejected in this day and age.

To clarify my original question: from what I have heard about solitary is that it is such a cruel form of punishment that it changes a person for the worse.* It exaggerates the evil qualities of a man and it does much harm to a person’s mental state. If the only way to protect the public from a man is to put him in solitary, would it not be more merciful to kill him?**

Human beings are called to find creative solutions to problems that don’t involve killing someone. This is similar to the reasoning behind euthanasia. A person is in pain, they are going to die anyway, why not end their pain by killing them now. We cannot take onto ourselves the power over life and death other than in self defense or defense of the public in the case of the State.

** Also in America, the death penalty is carried out in a racist, and unjust way. I am not advocating for the death penalty in this county for that reason and many others. This question is an intellectual and philosophic exercise for moral clarification. Only if we have frank and open discussions about the criminal justice system can we improve.

I do think that this fact is what first gives rise to the primal impulse in society to reject a death sentence. In Australia, the general injustice and inequality in society made some classes and races more likely to adopt crime to survive or to be nurtured by inculturated violence. Being aware of that, alters our sense of just desserts in regards to our fellow man, and reveals the reality of cultural illness needing to be addressed in conjunction with punishment for a mans sin. In that light it becomes clearer that a death sentence can be destructive to the common good rather than supporting it.

 

[Ender]

Human beings are called to find creative solutions to problems that don’t involve killing someone.

“Solving problems” is way too broad. The specific issue here is punishment for crimes, and at the top of the list of objectives is determining what constitutes a just punishment. It is justice itself that requires the life of the murderer in exchange for the life of the victim.

We cannot take onto ourselves the power over life and death other than in self defense or defense of the public in the case of the State.

This is refuted by church doctrines. She has consistently taught throughout her entire history that there are three exceptions to the prohibition against killing, not two: in self defense, in a just war, and as punishment.

Ender

 

[GoDolphins]

Capital punishment was commanded for some offenses in the Old Testament, like adultery. I know we don’t believe that now, because Jesus overturned it, but Jesus also said that if someone does wrong to us, we are toturn the other cheek. So, it looks like we have two choices. We should either follow the Old Testament and kill people or follow Jesus and let them go free. I mean, if Jesus wanted to teach justice, He could have just said so. If a man takes your cloak, you are to call the police. HA He didn’t say that. He said to also give him your shoes. Has anyone here ever done that? If you saw someone stealing your car, would you hand him the keys and also give him your wallet? If you don’t are you a follower of Jesus?

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment was commanded for some offenses in the Old Testament, like adultery. I know we don’t believe that now, because Jesus overturned it…

Capital punishment was specified any number of times in Mosaic Law, not all of which is applicable today, that is true. It was also specified by God himself in his covenant with Noah, which assuredly is still in force today. As to whether Jesus overturned the law it is useful to remember what he said on the subject:Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (Mt 5:17)

Jesus also said that if someone does wrong to us, we are toturn the other cheek. So, it looks like we have two choices. We should either follow the Old Testament and kill people or follow Jesus and let them go free

It is necessary to recognize that in the case of vengeance, which “*consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned” *(Aquinas), it is both forbidden the individual and the responsibility of the state. The individual is obliged to forgive, but the state is obliged to punish.
*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties… *(CCC 2266)
Ender

 

[gamewell45]

If the only two ways of protecting others from the aggressor are solitary confinement and the death penalty, which should be preferred?

Solitary confinement, while tortuous and draconian in limited circumstances is justified; the death penalty is never justified regardless.

 

[Ender]

Solitary confinement, while tortuous and draconian in limited circumstances is justified; the death penalty is never justified regardless.

I notice you are Episcopalian. Does the Episcopal church teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, and if so when did that teaching originate?

Ender

 

[gamewell45]

I notice you are Episcopalian. Does the Episcopal church teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, and if so when did that teaching originate?

Ender

The Episcopal Churches teachings on the death penalty is that it opposes it; I believe it took that position in the late 50’s-early 60’s.

 

[Ender]

The Episcopal Churches teachings on the death penalty is that it opposes it; I believe it took that position in the late 50’s-early 60’s.

That time frame seems reasonable. Before the second half of the 20th century virtually all Christian denominations endorsed the position that capital punishment was a morally acceptable practice and that a state had a natural right to employ it. Opposition to the death penalty had been growing, albeit not initially among Christians.*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)
The position I take is neither more nor less than what the Catholic church teaches, and has always taught. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Dulles)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

That time frame seems reasonable. Before the second half of the 20th century virtually all Christian denominations endorsed the position that capital punishment was a morally acceptable practice and that a state had a natural right to employ it. Opposition to the death penalty had been growing, albeit not initially among Christians.*The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. *(Cardinal Dulles)

Perhaps you haven’t heard of some of the significant countries apart from the European countries? Let me enlighten you. There’s Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Scotland, parts of South America, parts of Africa.

The death penalty was suspended on priniciple in 1912 and abolished in 1922 in Queensland. These countries many of which have been Christian since their inception, have being moving towards abolition for 100 years in more or less degrees.

All due respect to American theologians, but it would be more accurate to do some research before putting pen to paper.

The position I take is neither more nor less than what the Catholic church teaches, and has always taught. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Dulles)
Ender

But you are saying that the State is obliged to impose the death penalty for some crimes because it is the only sentence that serves justice. That isn’t the position the Church takes.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps you haven’t heard of some of the significant countries apart from the European countries? Let me enlighten you.

I don’t know why you’re snarky with me. It was Cardinal Dulles’ comment; I merely cited it.

All due respect to American theologians, but it would be more accurate to do some research before putting pen to paper.

Did you not understand what Dulles said? He specifically commented on the situation in Europe; he said nothing at all about the rest of the world. Nor was Dulles “merely” an American theologian; he was one of the very few men made a cardinal without having first been made a bishop, and this was done because of his theological acumen.

But you are saying that the State is obliged to impose the death penalty for some crimes because it is the only sentence that serves justice. That isn’t the position the Church takes.

More to the point that isn’t the position I take, nor can you cite any comment I’ve ever made that says that. If you pay closer attention to what is being said you’ll have a better understanding of the debate.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

All due respect to American theologians, but it would be more accurate to do some research before putting pen to paper.

Well lets say that you used his quote to imply that opposition to the death penalty is not a Christian position. Apologies to Card. Dulles. It is your misuse of his words to imply more than he was implying.

But you are saying that the State is obliged to impose the death penalty for some crimes because it is the only sentence that serves justice. That isn’t the position the Church takes.

More to the point that isn’t the position I take, nor can you cite any comment I’ve ever made that says that. If you pay closer attention to what is being said you’ll have a better understanding of the debate.

Ender

So you agree that there is no obligation on the state to impose the death penalty for murder?

 

[Ender]

Well lets say that you used his quote to imply that opposition to the death penalty is not a Christian position. Apologies to Card. Dulles. It is your misuse of his words to imply more than he was implying.

I don’t imply things; I come out and say them. It’s not my fault that you read things into my words I haven’t put there.

So you agree that there is no obligation on the state to impose the death penalty for murder?

A state has no obligation either to always impose or to never impose capital punishment.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

If the only two ways of protecting others from the aggressor are solitary confinement and the death penalty, which should be preferred?

The death penalty.

It provides better protection for more additional innocents harmed, as well as protecting the unjust aggressor from harming again, thereby protecting that unjust aggressor from committing additional evil and therefore, sparing that unjust aggressor more eternal harm.

 

[dudleysharp]

Let’s imagine we had Osama bin Laden in prison. What would make him such an extreme case as to warrant an execution?

Almost countless reasons for executing him, all of which are well known

“Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new membrs into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

" . . . in October 2003, John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’

b)“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”

“Hell in the heart of paradise”, 4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543

from:

Catechism and State Protection
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 

[dudleysharp]

Also in America, the death penalty is carried out in a racist, and unjust way. I am not advocating for the death penalty in this county for that reason and many others. This question is an intellectual and philosophic exercise for moral clarification. Only if we have frank and open discussions about the criminal justice system can we improve.

“Frank and open” includes fact checking.

RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.html

“There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing.”

“As blacks represent 47% of murderers and whites 37%, we see that whites are twice as likely to be executed for committing murder as are their black counterparts.”