Do you support the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Still waiting for Ender to supply the exact, official Church document which clearly states that the death penalty is required for murderers. Only then could we intelligently analyze if 2267 of the current Catechism is a reversal of this so-called “doctrine.” Until that happens, LittleSoldier, I agree that you are simply wasting your time.
 
Forgiveness for taking someone’s life is not ours to give. It si that of The Holy Spirit only.
Therefore, since the body will eventually die anyway, it is not improper to send the
sinner’s spirit to the eternal Judge.
 
Still waiting for Ender to supply the exact, official Church document which clearly states that the death penalty is required for murderers. Only then could we intelligently analyze if 2267 of the current Catechism is a reversal of this so-called “doctrine.”
It is one thing to disagree with a position I have taken but quite another to object to one I’ve never held. Nowhere have I claimed that the Church ever required capital punishment. What she requires is a punishment that is just and (until, possibly, 1995) accepted that the death penalty was a justifiable exercise of retributive justice for certain crimes. This is what has changed: she (appears) to have reversed her position on that point.

Either retributive justice justifies the use of executions or it doesn’t. In the past the Church taught that it did; now - according to 2267 - she teaches that it doesn’t. My position is that going from “Yes you may” to “No you may not” is not the development of doctrine but the repudiation of it and one of the two positions must be wrong.

Ender
 
It is one thing to disagree with a position I have taken but quite another to object to one I’ve never held. Nowhere have I claimed that the Church ever required capital punishment.
Ender, read post #344. Here is what was exchanged between us:

Surritter: Where most of us differ from you is that you constantly maintain that the death penalty is, by default, a required punishment, unless prudential judgment deems it more harmful to the common good.

Ender: Yes, that’s pretty much my position.

Now you claim that you never stated that the death penalty is required. WHICH IS IT?
 
The problems with the death penalty in this (or any country) are many.

1st - Our justice system is anything but just. 80% of the executions are carried out in the ex-slavery states of the South. Nearly all of those conviced are indigent - not financially capable of paying for a first class defense. Also they are almost invaribly guilty of murdering White people.

2nd - the system is very expensive. It costs millions of dollars to execute one person. How much better to spend the money insuring that ONLY guilty people are incarcerated, that the laws are applied equally and that vicims families are taken care of. A lot of social ills could be addressed with the money that is spent on capital punishment.

3rd = more than 100 people have been exonerated of their crimes through the use of DNA evidence in the last few years and some of these people were on death row! How many innocents have we put to death because there was no DNA?

4th - Did Jesus die only for the innocent? Are we not each capable of being murderous?

The Church says that the dealth penalty should be “so rare as to be almost non-existent” That is not the case in the US and any time we give a government the power to execute its own people it will not be rare and it will not be just.
 
Surritter: Where most of us differ from you is that you constantly maintain that the death penalty is, by default, a required punishment, unless prudential judgment deems it more harmful to the common good.

Ender: Yes, that’s pretty much my position.

Now you claim that you never stated that the death penalty is required. WHICH IS IT?
Well, there is the matter of the “unless” clause.

Take the case of Lawrence Russell Brewer, the white supremacist who was executed in Texas on the same day Troy Davis was executed in Georgia. Unlike Davis, Brewer not only never denied his guilt but bragged about his action and only regretted he couldn’t do it again. So, there was no question either of guilt or of repentance.

The Church requires a just punishment for sins quite apart from any consideration of protection: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266) so the question is - what was the just punishment for this crime?

According to Church teaching (Catechism of Trent): The just use of [executions], far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. … *So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.1 And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (**1 Gn 9:5-6)

*In Gn 9:5, God says he will *“demand an accounting for the life of another human being” *from both animals and man, commanding that even animals who kill a human be put to death. Is there any way to read Gn 9:5 so that the punishment God decreed for animals doesn’t apply to man as well? Isn’t this clearly what is meant by calling the execution of murderers an act of “paramount obedience”? You may disagree with those positions but - and here’s the point - it is what the Church taught; these are not my words but hers.

That the Church today may have opposed the execution of Lawrence Brewer doesn’t alter the fact that she would surely have supported it a generation earlier. Note also that the basis for her earlier position was retributive. She recognized the security gained by punishments: *“Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.” *but, unlike today, this benefit never provided the justification for her position.

Ender
 
Ender… Your use of the “unless” clause is acknowledged, but then in post #449 it is inconsistent to say that you don’t believe the Church teaches the DP as required.

I’ve already countered your quotations from Trent (please re-read post #355). You claim to be Catholic, but now that you’e discovered a supposed change in doctrine, why remain Catholic? After all, the true Church was supposed to be protected from error in the matter of doctrine/faith/morals. Could that be seen as illogical?

It also seems strange that learned prelates such as John Paul II and virtually every bishop failed to discover that 2267 might be a reversal of previous doctrine. I say this with fraternal charity, but it seems a bit smug to continually defend a view that flies in the face of those who actually hand down the faith (the Magisterium).
 
since I am pro-life I am against the death penalty. Now, societies have the absolute right to protect their citizens from murderers. IF a particular society has no effective means of protecting it’s citizens from a murderer/terrorist, such as a war torn country with no effective prisons then of course the death penalty would have to be implemented to protect the innocent. In the US however there are many maximum security prisons…San Quentin comes to mind as even having it’s own zip code. In the case of a murder in the US, the death penalty is not only more expensive than a life prison term, but not needed since the innocent, law abiding citizens are protected. Judging when or how a person should die who has commited a murder is up to God…yes the murderer thought he was God, but we can not turn around and think that we are now God as well…at least as long as you know the sermon on the mount which is the fullfillment of the “eye for an eye” statements of the old testament.
 
Hi there, Speaking of death prediction, I find it really odd that one of the on-line death prediction services showed me the same death date that I was foretold in my dream about a year ago. yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html - I can’t explain this coincidence in any other way except that there must be some kind of magic involved here.
 
Well do you?

One one hand, it’s a way different case then abortion, because killing a serial killer is different from killing an unborn baby.

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?
… died (((((
I always look here yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.
 
Hi there, Speaking of death prediction, I find it really odd that one of the on-line death prediction services showed me the same death date that I was foretold in my dream about a year ago. yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html - I can’t explain this coincidence in any other way except that there must be some kind of magic involved here.
 
The problems with the death penalty in this (or any country) are many.

1st - Our justice system is anything but just. 80% of the executions are carried out in the ex-slavery states of the South. Nearly all of those conviced are indigent - not financially capable of paying for a first class defense. Also they are almost invaribly guilty of murdering White people.
So what should we do, execute a rich white person every time we kill a guilty black murderer? 🤷
2nd - the system is very expensive. It costs millions of dollars to execute one person. How much better to spend the money insuring that ONLY guilty people are incarcerated, that the laws are applied equally and that vicims families are taken care of. A lot of social ills could be addressed with the money that is spent on capital punishment.
According to TIME Magazine in 1994, a maximum security cell costs $75,000 a year. If you keep somebody in one of those cells for 30 years, he has cost the state, $2,250,000. This does not take into account, the cost of his trial, and any appeals he will file while in prison.
3rd = more than 100 people have been exonerated of their crimes through the use of DNA evidence in the last few years and some of these people were on death row! How many innocents have we put to death because there was no DNA?
None, until proven otherwise.
4th - Did Jesus die only for the innocent? Are we not each capable of being murderous?
What is your point? :confused:
 
Well, there is the matter of the “unless” clause.

Take the case of Lawrence Russell Brewer, the white supremacist who was executed in Texas on the same day Troy Davis was executed in Georgia. Unlike Davis, Brewer not only never denied his guilt but bragged about his action and only regretted he couldn’t do it again. So, there was no question either of guilt or of repentance.

The Church requires a just punishment for sins quite apart from any consideration of protection: “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” (CCC 2266) so the question is - what was the just punishment for this crime?

According to Church teaching (Catechism of Trent): The just use of [executions], far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. … *So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.1 And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (**1 Gn 9:5-6)

*In Gn 9:5, God says he will *“demand an accounting for the life of another human being” *from both animals and man, commanding that even animals who kill a human be put to death. Is there any way to read Gn 9:5 so that the punishment God decreed for animals doesn’t apply to man as well? Isn’t this clearly what is meant by calling the execution of murderers an act of “paramount obedience”? You may disagree with those positions but - and here’s the point - it is what the Church taught; these are not my words but hers.

That the Church today may have opposed the execution of Lawrence Brewer doesn’t alter the fact that she would surely have supported it a generation earlier. Note also that the basis for her earlier position was retributive. She recognized the security gained by punishments: *“Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.” *but, unlike today, this benefit never provided the justification for her position.

Ender
This is your answer?? Oy vey!! :eek:
 
So what should we do, execute a rich white person every time we kill a guilty black murderer? 🤷
How about we stop executing anyone or if we execute someone we make sure that racism and poverty are not factors that are significantly positively correlated with a possible unethical “guilty” verdict?
According to TIME Magazine in 1994, a maximum security cell costs $75,000 a year. If you keep somebody in one of those cells for 30 years, he has cost the state, $2,250,000. This does not take into account, the cost of his trial, and any appeals he will file while in prison.
"The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative – life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials – one on guilt and one on sentencing – make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

"Death penalty cases are much more expensive than other criminal cases and cost more than imprisonment for life with no possibility of parole. In California, capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials.(1) A study in Kansas indicated that a capital trial costs $116,700 more than an ordinary murder trial.(2) Complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses are all likely to add to the costs in death penalty cases. The irreversibility of the death sentence requires courts to follow heightened due process in the preparation and course of the trial. The separate sentencing phase of the trial can take even longer than the guilt or innocence phase of the trial. And defendants are much more likely to insist on a trial when they are facing a possible death sentence. After conviction, there are constitutionally mandated appeals which involve both prosecution and defense costs.

"Most of these costs occur in every case for which capital punishment is sought, regardless of the outcome. Thus, the true cost of the death penalty includes all the added expenses of the “unsuccessful” trials in which the death penalty is sought but not achieved. Moreover, if a defendant is convicted but not given the death sentence, the state will still incur the costs of life imprisonment, in addition to the increased trial expenses.

“For the states which employ the death penalty, this luxury comes at a high price. In Texas, a death penalty case costs taxpayers an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. In Florida, each execution is costing the state $3.2 million. In financially strapped California, one report estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital punishment. The New York Department of Correctional Services estimated that implementing the death penalty would cost the state about $118 million annually.”

fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”
[Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice]

deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

"Turns out, it is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them, according to a series of recent surveys. Tens of millions of dollars cheaper, politicians are learning, during a tumbling recession when nearly every state faces job cuts and massive deficits.

"So an increasing number of them are considering abolishing capital punishment in favor of life imprisonment, not on principle but out of financial necessity.

‘It’s 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive,’ though most Americans believe the opposite, said Donald McCartin, a former California jurist known as “The Hanging Judge of Orange County” for sending nine men to death row.

“Deep into retirement, he lost his faith in an eye for an eye and now speaks against it.”

"California Cost Studies:
Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008):

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

[Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (June 30, 2008)]

deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

-----continued in next post-----
 
-----continuation of last post-----

Cost Study by the Sacramento Bee (1988)

Key Points:

A study done by the Sacramento Bee (March 28, 1988) suggests that California would save $90 million per year if it were to abolish the death penalty.

$78 million of these expenses are occurred at the trial level and would not be reduced by shortening appeals.

Source:
“CLOSING DEATH ROW WOULD SAVE STATE $90 MILLION A YEAR”, Sacramento Bee, Published on March 28, 1988, Page A1, 2589 words.

ACLU of Northern California’s Report “The Hidden Death Tax” (2008)
In “The Hidden Death Tax” the ACLU-NC reveals for the first time some of the hidden costs of California’s death penalty, based on records of actual trial expenses and state budgets.

The report reveals that:

California taxpayers pay at least $117 million each year post-trial seeking execution of the people currently on death row;

Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waiting for them to die there of other causes, will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age;

California death penalty trials have cost as much as $10.9 million.

Conclusion:
The report concludes that not enough is being done to track death penalty expenses. The report recommends tracking more of these costs to provide greater transparency and accountability for a system that costs California hundreds of millions. Finally, this report demonstrate that California’s death penalty is arbitrary, unnecessary and a waste of critical resources.

Los Angeles Times Study Finds California Spends $250 Million per Execution (2005)

Key Points:

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. (This figure does not take into account additional court costs for post-conviction hearings in state and federal courts, estimated to exceed several million dollars.)

With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.

It costs approximately $90,000 more a year to house an inmate on death row, than in the general prison population or $57.5 million annually.

The Attorney General devotes about 15% of his budget, or $11 million annually to death penalty cases.

The California Supreme Court spends $11.8 million on appointed counsel for death row inmates.

The Office of the State Public Defender and the Habeas Corpus Resource Center spend a total of $22.3 million on defense for indigent defendants facing death.

The federal court system spends approximately $12 million on defending death row inmates in federal court.

No figures were given for the amount spent by the offices of County District Attorneys on the prosecution of capital cases, however these expenses are presumed to be in the tens of millions of dollars each year.

Source: Tempest, Rone, “Death Row Often Means a Long Life”, Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2005.

Study Finds Death Penalty More Expensive Than Sentence of Life Without Parole. (1993)

Capital Trials Are Different:

Capital punishment in California, as in every other state, is more expensive than a life imprisonment sentence without the opportunity of parole. These costs are not the result of frivolous appeals but rather the result of Constitutionally mandated safeguards that can be summarized as follows:

Juries must be given clear guidelines on sentencing, which result in explicit provisions for what constitutes aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Defendants must have a dual trial–one to establish guilt or innocence and if guilty a second trial to determine whether or not they would get the death penalty.

Defendants sentenced to death are granted oversight protection in an automatic appeal to the state supreme court.

Constitutional Safeguards

Since there are few defendants who will plead guilty to a capital charge, virtually every death penalty trial becomes a jury trial with all of the following elements:

a more extensive jury selection procedure

a four fold increase in the number of motions filed

a longer, dual trial process

more investigators and expert testimony

more lawyers specializing in death penalty litigation

automatic, mandatory appeals

Conclusions

This study concludes that the enhanced cost of trying a death penalty case is at least $1.25 million more than trying a comparable murder case resulting in a sentence of life in prison without parole. These savings are entirely at the trial level and do not take into consideration the cost to county taxpayers (as they share the burden with other California citizens) for the mandatory state supreme court appeals and potential federal appeals.

Source:

This study titled “Capital Punishment at What Price: An Analysis of the Cost Issue in a Strategy to Abolish the Death Penalty” was completed by David Erickson in 1993 in the form of a Master’s Thesis for U.C. Berkeley’s Graduate School of Public Policy. The complete study can be found in the U.C. Berkeley Graduate Library or can be obtained by contacting Death Penalty Focus.

These studies can be accessed via the following link:
deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42
 
None, until proven otherwise.
I found the following to be interesting:

The most recent arguments against it centered on the ever-increasing number of convicts cleared by DNA evidence.

Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system "so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life."

He commuted the sentences of all 167 death row convicts, most to life imprisonment without parole. His moratorium is still in effect.

msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/execute-or-not-question-cost/ [bolding added for emphasis]

I’m still researching this.
 
Hi there, Speaking of death prediction, I find it really odd that one of the on-line death prediction services showed me the same death date that I was foretold in my dream about a year ago. yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html - I can’t explain this coincidence in any other way except that there must be some kind of magic involved here.
Private revelation is a violation of forum rules. Your post has been reported to the moderator. This thread is not about death prediction; it is a discussion of the death penalty and Church teaching.
 
You claim to be Catholic, but now that you’e discovered a supposed change in doctrine, why remain Catholic?
That would be a very difficult question to answer if I believed the doctrine had changed, but as I’ve said, I believe that 2267 is a prudential suggestion and not a reversal of doctrine so this difficulty doesn’t apply to me.
I’ve already countered your quotations from Trent (please re-read post #355).
You didn’t counter the teaching from Trent, you simply refused to address them. You acted as if they have no meaning whatsoever.
It also seems strange that learned prelates such as John Paul II and virtually every bishop failed to discover that 2267 might be a reversal of previous doctrine. I say this with fraternal charity, but it seems a bit smug to continually defend a view that flies in the face of those who actually hand down the faith (the Magisterium).
Well, if they understand that 2267 is opinion then they don’t have to address that problem either. According to Cardinal Dulles this isn’t an issue for precisely that reason:
*
**In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. 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.

*Ender
 
I support the death penalty in one particular case: sex crimes

Being a survivor as I am, I can tell you that crime is one of complete and total violation of your freedom, your life, everything. I know forgiveness comes from the heart and we should forgive those who trespass against us but it is hard to forgive someone who robs you of such things. As a boy from 8-11 I had to endure that treatment from a family member living in the same house as I did. I couldn’t tell anyone. When it came time for confirmation, I was pressured by my parents into having the person who molested me be my confirmation sponsor. They didn’t know what he had done. They thought it would be great having an older close Catholic guide me. Looking back now, I wish I had exposed the horror I had endured right then and there instead of leaving it buried for another 7 years before someone finally knew of it.

A child molester, a rapist or what is going on at Penn State right now those people simply can not be helped or “cured” of their mindset. They have brought unreversable harm to their victims and they will always victimize again. I can’t see a better punishment then the death penalty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top