Do you support the death penalty?

[Birdpreacher]

I know how much money is spent on detention.

I agree completely that peaceful detention is the proper and preferred way to go. I disagree however with the false premise that it is completely possible to eliminate violence against innocents in prisons.

I agree with you that prisons are never going to be completely 100% safe, just as weed-whackers will never be 100% safe. There is a reason why we dont kill crazy people no matter how dangerous they may be. That is because the American Legal System is based on the notion that punished should understand their punishment. (Fun FAct: Our common Law system is derived from the practice in the RCC which forbade execution in instances were the offender was incapable of receiving the sacrament of reconciliation.)

If we dont kill the absolutely dangerous crazy people, then how can safety outweigh our duty to protect life.

As for the rest, my views on the death penalty are perfectly in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as I outlined earlier in my original post in this thread.

I guess that is were you differ with JPII who called for the worldwide abolition of the DP. I find the Pope more persuasive on this one.
vatican.va/roman_curia/se…enalty_en.html

 

[jwinch2]

And yet the Church teaches that sometimes it is permissible to directly kill a human being, even when there is no immediate threat from him or her (the convict is securely locked up and under the watchful eye of the warden, executioner, witness, and even TV cameras). Therefore, we must conclude that it is not intrinsically wrong to end a human life, even when self-defense is not an issue.

There is another option, which is that you can conclude that there are simply some people who you are unable to contain in such a way that violence can be completely prevented. I stipulate entirely that these situations are and should remain extremely rare. However, rare, does not equal non-existent.

This conclusion allows for an understanding of the use of the death penalty in light of church teaching on self defense.

 

[Jim_Baur]

This is my prayer.

This is my opinion.

I pray every day for an end to murder in the City of St. Louis, MO.

We have about 150 murders a year.

The U. S. has about 15, 000 murders a year.

Let pray to end murder.

That is the greater problem.

I think the medical abortions and abortifacients need even more prayer…

We do not even have a number for the total of the last two.

Let us pray!

 

[jwinch2]

I guess that is were you differ with JPII who called for the worldwide abolition of the DP. I find the Pope more persuasive on this one.
vatican.va/roman_curia/se…enalty_en.html

I’m sure that is what Blessed John Paul II’s personal opinion was. However, unless he declared it in such as way that it is to be taken as an infallible statement, which it wasn’t, then it does not supersede established Church doctrine as propagated in the Catechism. This has already been pointed out to you on more than one occasion in this thread.

Pope John Paul II was a great man and deserving of canonization in my view. However, that does not mean that everything which he wrote or said represents binding dogma for the faithful. Church tradition, as defined by the Magesterium and outlined in the Catechism cannot and will not change. Church tradition allows for the death penalty as outlined in the Catechism. Unless of course you are suggesting that the CCC does not represent what Blessed JP2 said it was which is “a sure norm for teaching the faith”?

 

[anp1215]

Anti-death penalty. I supported it up until a few months ago. I have changed my views.

 

[surritter]

There is another option, which is that you can conclude that there are simply some people who you are unable to contain in such a way that violence can be completely prevented. I stipulate entirely that these situations are and should remain extremely rare. However, rare, does not equal non-existent.

This conclusion allows for an understanding of the use of the death penalty in light of church teaching on self defense.

But notice how I phrased the question… there is no threat from this person at the time of execution, since he is under heavy guard and even being observed by witnesses to the execution. So how that can be considered self-defense to society?

A similar analogy: Catholic moral theology would allow lethal force to stop an abortionist if we are there in the abortion room, because of the premise of defending the child. But how far removed from the actual abortion room or time of abortion can lethal force be used? In the hallway? In the parking lot? At the abortionist’s home before he goes to work?

There have to be some limits to the proximity of an actual crime and the implementation of force in the name of self-defense.

 

[jwinch2]

But notice how I phrased the question… there is no threat from this person at the time of execution, since he is under heavy guard and even being observed by witnesses to the execution. So how that can be considered self-defense to society?

I would suggest it is because he cannot be kept in that situation for any length of time. The law does not permit complete restraint of prisoners at all times. Thus, what you are describing is a temporary situation and does not represent a solution to the danger that person would represent if he were given a life sentence rather than being executed.

That is how I understand it anyway…

As for your abortion analogy, I have no simple answer for that one… If you have thoughts I would be interested in hearing them, but to be fair, they are probably outside the scope of this thread. What I can say is that I hope I am alive at the time when people look back on this with horror the way we do Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, etc. and shake our heads at how something like abortion could have ever happened.

 

[dudleysharp]

I have a hard time believing that the ones convicted of murder are incapable of being peacefully detained in light of our technology and prison system. .

It is not a matter of incapable, it is a matter of constant human error and the fact that the death penalty provides greater protection for innocents and that the Church changed her position from teachings based upon morals, justice and eternal foundations to the present teachings which are based upon prison security,

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

That is not, remotely, the case.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

It has always been so and will remain.

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

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members 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) “Hell in the heart of paradise”
“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.”
4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP
http://tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543

c) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_fort_hood_muslims

UPDATE: “New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot”

foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/20/new-evidence-suggests-radical-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-overlooked-key-player-11/

d) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

e) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

f) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5if_tdQrE5B6tvgSYXBtfmfMOLEwwD9CACTHG0

g) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11/30/authorities-sex-offender-pulls-gun-on-texas-guards-during-prison-transfer-search-ongoing-17934/

h) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
policeone.com/corrections/articles/120563-Officials-embarrassed-by-Texas-death-row-inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

i) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if it cared to look.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But on the other day, isn’t it illogical to kill people who kill people to show people who kill people than killing people is wrong?

It’s not so much about telling what’s wrong as it is about keeping that person from killing any more.

I mean you guys can say we can lock 'em up for life but not every country has the capacity to contain their killers.

 

[Ender]

THe Church recognized it as a necessity of the times.

This is not accurate. Prior to 1995 (Evangelium Vitae, JPII) no one in the Church had ever made any comment tying capital punishment to the penal capabilities of society. Quite the opposite given that morality does not change with time or place. Capital punishment is accepted by the Church because it is the just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. That justness cannot change with time.

But this is just an opinion of a guy currently being beatified, so take it as you will

Unfortunately it doesn’t accord with the teachings of many who have already been sanctified. But we agree on this: it is just an opinion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What!? The Church teaches that the primary objective of capital punishment is retribution? Where did our Founder preach that? If you’re gonna say “the Church teaches…” be prepared to give a source from the Catechisim or other authoritative document.

This is a valid challenge. The catechism in 2266 identifies the primary objective of punishment (but unfortunately doesn’t clarify it): *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *

According to Cardinal Dulles: “The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.”

Which of those four could possibly be the one referred to in 2266? Clearly, only one of the four - retribution - addresses what has already happened. The other three look to the future but what is accomplished in the future cannot resolve what has happened in the past. It would be helpful if this point was clarified but it is nonetheless true that it is retribution that is the primary objective of punishment. I think this is one of the great harms done by 2267: by focusing solely on protection (which is only a secondary objective) it has led to a distorted understanding of the nature of punishment itself. Your reaction to my earlier statement is I think the common one.

Dulles supported JPII’s call for an end to capital punishment as a prudential judgment, not a moral one. As he saw it, the retributive aspect of capital punishment was lost on modern socieities.

*Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. **For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. **The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. ***(How may times have we heard this opinion expressed in these forums?)

The effort to eliminate capital punishment was not initiated by religious societies.

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

Dulles gives a very thoughtful analysis of capital punishment, and while he agrees that its use should be curtailed he is clear about the source of his opposition … and it is not based on any perceived immorality of using it. It is entirely practical.

Ender

 

[jwinch2]

This is a valid challenge. The catechism in 2266 identifies the primary objective of punishment (but unfortunately doesn’t clarify it): *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *

According to Cardinal Dulles: “The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.”

Which of those four could possibly be the one referred to in 2266? Clearly, only one of the four - retribution - addresses what has already happened. The other three look to the future but what is accomplished in the future cannot resolve what has happened in the past. It would be helpful if this point was clarified but it is nonetheless true that it is retribution that is the primary objective of punishment. I think this is one of the great harms done by 2267: by focusing solely on protection (which is only a secondary objective) it has led to a distorted understanding of the nature of punishment itself. Your reaction to my earlier statement is I think the common one.

Dulles supported JPII’s call for an end to capital punishment as a prudential judgment, not a moral one. As he saw it, the retributive aspect of capital punishment was lost on modern socieities.

*Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. **For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. **The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. ***(How may times have we heard this opinion expressed in these forums?)

The effort to eliminate capital punishment was not initiated by religious societies.

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

Dulles gives a very thoughtful analysis of capital punishment, and while he agrees that its use should be curtailed he is clear about the source of his opposition … and it is not based on any perceived immorality of using it. It is entirely practical.

Ender

Insightful post. Thank you for that.

 

[Lui]

No.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Murdering Murderers makes about as much sense as Raping Rapists

Why the “but they’re so dangerous in prison” argument wont wash:

**Prisons will never be a 100% safe, well neither will working in a mine. **So do we spend more of society’s resources on making them as safe as possible or just kill all the “dangerous prisoners”

Why is it that we are willing to blow so much money on resucing Chilean Miners who will never ever be able to repay the costs of the services and equipment used in the rescue effort? Afterall the Miners exercised their free will to be there in the first place. Is it because the value of human life transcnds all notions of economic efficnecy?

Why not try to make the prisons safer? The prisoners exercise their free will, by commtiing acts which get them sent there, while the employees exercise theirs by choosing to work there.

We have mines, mines are dangerous, we could spend a lot more money making mines safer but society is ok with there being some loss of life, if there is an exercise of free will to engage in risky behavior.

If saftey is such a huge problem in the United States Prison System, Then why are we not killing the ultra dangerous crazy people who comitt murder?

The united States forbids the execution, and even the trial of an incompetent person. Incompetent people can be very very dangerous to confine in mental health insitutions. If there was a serious threat for the wellbeing of other inmates and employees, there would be no reason to not kill the dangerously insane.

This is because the American Judical System derives its principals from the British Common Law who derived it from Holy Mother Church: YOu dont kill people who cant receive confession.

This rationale puts the concern for safety of the community behind the spiritual wellbeing of the offender. So if safety concerns didn’t trump it then, when there were no max security prisons, why on earth would it trump the system now?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Why not try to make the prisons safer? The prisoners exercise their free will, by commtiing acts which get them sent there, while the employees exercise theirs by choosing to work there. We have mines, mines are dangerous, we could spend a lot more money making mines safer but society is ok with there being some loss of life, if there is an exercise of free will to engage in risky behavior.

The miners are innocent, the murderers are guilty. This is why are we more concerned about the safety of miners than the safety of prisoners.

The united States forbids the execution, and even the trial of an incompetent person. Incompetent people can be very very dangerous to confine in mental health insitutions. If there was a serious threat for the wellbeing of other inmates and employees, there would be no reason to not kill the dangerously insane.

There are very few dangerously insane people. Since we have only a few, we can contain them safely, and we should because they are not responsible for their actions. However, we have a far larger group of murders, thus, they are harder to restrain. In addition to this, murderers are responsible for their actions. Therefore, execution is justified.

This is because the American Judical System derives its principals from the British Common Law who derived it from Holy Mother Church: YOu dont kill people who cant receive confession.

Where does the Church teach this?

 

[jwinch2]

Three simple questions.

1. Are you honestly suggesting that correctional officers and other prison staff (who are innocent of crime by the way) should be free to be assaulted because they made a choice of free will to work there?
2. Are you honestly suggesting that rescuing miners who is somehow on the same level as a violent offender who has proven again and again that he or she cannot be contained in prison in a safe manner?
3. Are you honestly suggesting that we should go against the catechism and treat the criminally insane who may not be in complete control of their actions nor understand the ramifications of them in the same manner that we treat someone who is fully competent to stand trial, or vice versa?

If your answer to any of those questions is in the affirmative, then I am through conversing with you as you will have proven yourself completely immune to logical reasoning of any kind.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Three simple questions.

1. Are you honestly suggesting that correctional officers and other prison staff (who are innocent of crime by the way) should be free to be assaulted because they made a choice of free will to work there?

A soldier knows that there is a chance he may be in combat. A police officer knows there may be a chance he will be shot. Why isnt it logical for an individual working at a prison to know that there is a possibility he/she could be attacked?

While I sincerely hope that the people in your life who work at prisons never end up in a violent situation, I still believe that certain jobs are just going to always pose certain risks. Perhaps a better way to safeguard employees and other prisoners would be for states to devote more resources to Prisons.

1. Are you honestly suggesting that rescuing miners who is somehow on the same level as a violent offender who has proven again and again that he or she cannot be contained in prison in a safe manner?

The entire point of the mine is that society is willing to allow people to work in risky situtaions.

1. Are you honestly suggesting that we should go against the catechism and treat the criminally insane who may not be in complete control of their actions nor understand the ramifications of them in the same manner that we treat someone who is fully competent to stand trial, or vice versa?

You’re argument, and correct me if I am wrong was: Its too dangerous to not have the DP since innocent prison employees and other inmantes may get hurt. Well that argument dosnt wash if you consider the fact that we lock up mentally ill people who are just as dangerous if not more dangerous.

 

[Birdpreacher]

There are very few dangerously insane people. Since we have only a few, we can contain them safely, and we should because they are not responsible for their actions. However, we have a far larger group of murders, thus, they are harder to restrain. In addition to this, murderers are responsible for their actions. Therefore, execution is justified.Where does the Church teach this?

Lots of people in California, A death penalty State would beg to disagree.

“All you need to know is that last year we had over 8,000 aggressive incidents and over 5,000 injuries,” said Allen, a former psychiatric nurse. “Every one of those incidents is a tragedy in its own right.”

articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/24/local/la-me-state-mental-hospitals-20110824

There were approximately 116 violent incidents per 100 patients at just one California Mental Hospital.
npr.org/2011/04/08/134961895/violence-surges-at-hospital-for-mentally-ill-criminals

This year there are 3,521 people on death row in the United States
deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year

Inside prison, a number of wardens report that those serving life sentences are the best-behaved prisoners in their entire system. Leo Lalonde of the Michigan Department of Corrections says of those serving life without parole sentences: “After a few years, lifers become your better prisoners. They tend to adjust and just do their time. They tend to be a calming influence on the younger kids, and we have more problems with people serving short terms.”[67] Similarly, Alabama officials noted that their life without parole inmates commit 50% fewer disciplinary offenses per capita than all other types of inmates combined. [68]

Lifers can also make a significant contribution to society in the time given them. For example, Craig Datesman at Graterford Prison in Pennsylvania coordinates a Lifers project to help young people who have had some trouble with the law to go straight. “We have taken a life and so we feel it’s our responsibility to save a life now,” said Datesman. [69] Executions, of course, cut off the possibility of any restitution to society or the family of the victim.

“We have taken a life and so we feel it’s our responsibility to save a life now.”

–Craig Datesman, coordinator of a Lifers program at Graterford Prison in Pennsylvania

deathpenaltyinfo.org/sentencing-life-americans-embrace-alternatives-death-penalty#sxn5

 

[surritter]

This is a valid challenge. The catechism in 2266 identifies the primary objective of punishment (but unfortunately doesn’t clarify it): *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *

According to Cardinal Dulles: “The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.”

Which of those four could possibly be the one referred to in 2266? Clearly, only one of the four - retribution - addresses what has already happened. The other three look to the future but what is accomplished in the future cannot resolve what has happened in the past. It would be helpful if this point was clarified but it is nonetheless true that it is retribution that is the primary objective of punishment. I think this is one of the great harms done by 2267: by focusing solely on protection (which is only a secondary objective) it has led to a distorted understanding of the nature of punishment itself. Your reaction to my earlier statement is I think the common one.

You met the challenge … thanks! I think the comments about the distinction between retribution and vengeance are valuable to this discussion.

However, I would take issue with only one thing that you’ve said here. The four “ends” of punishment are rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. Yet you claim that only retribution conforms to the primary objective, which is “redress the disorder caused by the offense.”
Retribution need not be the only one. We must examine what is meant by “disorder caused by the offense.” By committing a crime, a person causes internal disorder to their soul, and disorder in their relationship to others. The criminal causes disorder in society by instilling fear in others or even making the occurrence of the crime seem more acceptable/unable to be stopped. Therefore, rehabilition of the damage done can be an objective of equal importance to retribution because it attempts to heal these disorders.

My point is that you narrowly say that retribution must be “it” because it is the only thing that speaks to the past event, but I read the “disorder” clause a bit more broadly. So it’s a tad over the top to say that the Church directly teaches that retribution is the primary objective of capital punishment.

 

[Lui]

Troy Davis has been executed. I guess the Capital Punishment supporters are celebrating now.