Do you support the death penalty?

[kgomez317]

I can really understand the solemn debate over this issue, but the way it is really appearing is a non christian debate whcih can be down right nasty. I think all
Catholics need to look at the Pope’s views which clearly say what i originally said. If we are able to contain dangerous people like murderers from the general public thaen we need to implement those meausres. If on another hand we are talking about war torn countries with no real leadership, nor in tact prison systems then we must do what is the best for the greater good of innocent lives. I’m NOT a theologian but this debate has gone on for so long. It reminds me of my protestant days of “self revelation” A group of us would be "eye for eye’ others would be like “we must look at the fullfillment of the New Testament” If we’re all not going to treat each other with true Christian charity, and just believe how we personally read Church doctrine, then we might as well all just “go with the feeling the Holy Spirit is leading us” I’m really just trying to understand. I left the Lutheran church for the Authoity of the Catholic Church and I am daily getting comments about the death penalty which should have been fully answered by an apologist or theologian instead of hate being spewed daily. When will this end? Just wondering.

 

[surritter]

That’s good and honest (name removed by moderator)ut, Kgomez … thanks. Part of the difficulty is that the Catholic Church has a long history, and with nearly 2000 years of writings by Church leaders somebody will always find two writings that appear to contradict each other (just as in the Bible!).
This debate seems so long and drawn out because of these small nuances in certain texts. I am with you in that the Church is the authority. Trust the apologists and theologians who are loyal to the pope and the Magisterium.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip
If we are able to contain dangerous people like murderers from the general public thaen we need to implement those meausres. If on another hand we are talking about war torn countries with no real leadership, nor in tact prison systems then we must do what is the best for the greater good of innocent lives. snip
.

It is a truism that innocents are more at risk from living guilty murderers than they are from executed guilty murderers, whether we are speaking of conditions in prison or in the free world.

Therefore, we know that executed murderers will provide greater protection for innocents and, therefore, a greater defense of society.

Therefore, execution, the greater protector of innocents, will "better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and is more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’, because both the common good and the dignity of all persons is supported to the choice to protect more innocents, as opposed to the choice of sparing more murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocents.

 

[surritter]

It is a truism that innocents are more at risk from living guilty murderers than they are from executed guilty murderers, whether we are speaking of conditions in prison or in the free world.

Therefore, we know that executed murderers will provide greater protection for innocents and, therefore, a greater defense of society.

Therefore, execution, the greater protector of innocents, will "better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and is more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’, because both the common good and the dignity of all persons is supported to the choice to protect more innocents, as opposed to the choice of sparing more murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocents.

But, once again, you are overlooking the conditional clause which your quotation (#2267) is based upon. It presumes that the state has the means to lock up (even permanently) these convicted killers. You are bypassing that and lobbying for capital punishment as the de facto punishment for murderers. This is a good example of why folks like Kgomez get frustrated in these discussions.

 

[szuhole]

By the way, suppose you know your death date - does that put your life at ease? Has any of you tried? I am going to find out. Here is a link to the site where I am thinking of taking this kind of test - yourdeathdate.info I am not sure though if it`s worth taking that test there.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I can really understand the solemn debate over this issue, but the way it is really appearing is a non christian debate whcih can be down right nasty. I think all
Catholics need to look at the Pope’s views which clearly say what i originally said. If we are able to contain dangerous people like murderers from the general public thaen we need to implement those meausres. If on another hand we are talking about war torn countries with no real leadership, nor in tact prison systems then we must do what is the best for the greater good of innocent lives. I’m NOT a theologian but this debate has gone on for so long. It reminds me of my protestant days of “self revelation” A group of us would be "eye for eye’ others would be like “we must look at the fullfillment of the New Testament” If we’re all not going to treat each other with true Christian charity, and just believe how we personally read Church doctrine, then we might as well all just “go with the feeling the Holy Spirit is leading us” I’m really just trying to understand. I left the Lutheran church for the Authoity of the Catholic Church and I am daily getting comments about the death penalty which should have been fully answered by an apologist or theologian instead of hate being spewed daily. When will this end? Just wondering.

I understand your frustration. I see that you’re a new member. I’m going to assume that you have not changed your user-name.

Threads on topics such as the death penalty, abortion, and numerous other issues tend to be long threads. I was an active participant in an abortion thread that went way above 1,000 posts (normally threads are stopped at or about 1,000 posts). I was the OP of a thread that reached 2,000 posts (it was split into Part I and Part 2) and it would probably have remained active for many more posts if I hadn’t decided to “retire.” This thread is not long.

It has been my experience that apologists and theologians do not post in threads. If one expects someone like Jimmy Akin to respond to a post in a thread one is most likely going to be disappointed. He has his own blog. One can PM an apologist and present questions to an apologist if one wishes (there is the “Question to an Apologist” which changes every few days and is presented at the top left-hand area of the site when one first logs in).

This thread is also not particularly hateful or nasty. If it were, the guilty members would be warned, suspended, or even permanently banned. That happens a lot but I haven’t seen it happen to anyone who has posted in this thread (I wouldn’t know about warnings as they do not appear under the username of the poster who has been warned). People get upset and frustrated and it shows sometimes. And once that 20-minute time for making edits to a post has passed, the post is there and can’t be edited or deleted without moderator approval - even if the person who wrote it deeply regrets doing so.

IMHO this thread is going on just about like every other thread dealing with pro-life issues. It is a controversial subject and people have strong feelings. Most of us are not apologists or theologians of the caliber of Jimmy Akin or Peter Kreeft. CAF is open to just about everyone so a thread may contain posts from non-Catholics, atheists, pantheists, Muslims, etc.

The debate will not end when this thread ends. There will be more threads on the death penalty. There will probably be threads on the death penalty on CAF as long as CAF exists.

My viewpoint is that we should follow Church teaching. Church teaching is clear to me. I would think that would be the end of the discussion but as you can see, it isn’t.

None of the posters in this thread can make or change Church teaching, even if some think they can. If you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church then you are on the right track. We know the teaching is in the CCC. When one wants to know about Church teaching that is the best source - not a thread on CAF. Errors are promulgated and heresies (as defined by the Church) are defended. Yet I think it’s still important to have this forum because the Church encourages questioning and discussion. That is one reason I love the Church so much.

As for charity, I wonder if there has ever been a member of CAF with at least 100 posts under his belt who has not been uncharitable at least once. We are all sinners and we all get angry and frustrated. Fortunately Catholics have the Sacrament of Reconciliation and we should always forgive others.

I hope this helps.

 

[kgomez317]

im undecided cause on 1 hand im for it but on the other im against it

I will be praying for you in your discernment for being in communion with the Catholic Church

 

[dudleysharp]

But, once again, you are overlooking the conditional clause which your quotation (#2267) is based upon. It presumes that the state has the means to lock up (even permanently) these convicted killers. You are bypassing that and lobbying for capital punishment as the de facto punishment for murderers. This is a good example of why folks like Kgomez get frustrated in these discussions.

Excellent point, if you are correct.

2267: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

The problem is that there is no such traditonal teachings in the Churche’s history, as many have recognized.

Besides that major error, you are correct with “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

But both EV and CCC all but do away with that conditon, with:

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 - which means the death penalty - my insert, ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

Both EV and CCC are saying that because of the great defense of society, based upon secular security, that the justification for the death penalty is, “pratically, non existent”.

Do you not read it that way. If not, how could you not?

They are saying that there is almost no circumstance within which the death penalty can be used, because secular security is so good.

 

[surritter]

Yes, I understand the point, and I do agree that both documents make a strong argument for setting aside the DP in this day and age. But that is not an official Church teaching. It is guidance about a teaching that applies to a particular time and place. This whole angle of the discussion is based on the conditions of a society and a time which are subject to change.

Such statements by JPII do not mean that the teaching of the Church has changed! The Church’s teaching has always been that the DP is not in inherently sinful or wrong. That’s it, folks.

If Ender wants to say that the Church teaching is that the DP is required, based on retribution, he’s wrong. If you want to say that the Church teaching is that the DP must never be used in the 21st century, that is wrong also.

 

[Ender]

Don’t you recall that this ground was covered in (roughly) posts #90-146?

The Catechism in 2266 says “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” To answer the specific question, “redress” does not equate to “retribution.”

Obviously we haven’t covered this topic sufficiently given that you still don’t recognize that redress and retribution are the same thing.

I must point out the irony: you are claiming that the Church has changed her teaching–effectively saying that the current Catechism is wrong–yet we are supposed to hold these four non-Magisterial quotations of your choosing as authoritative voices on the matter.

No. I have not claimed the Church has changed her doctrine; it has been my position all along that 2267 is not doctrine but prudential recommendation. As for your dismissal of those sources for being non-Magisterial, are you really suggesting that everything not written in a Magisterial document is irrelevant and is to be ignored? Do you ignore what your priest says? He is, after all, not part of the Magisterium. You should at least consider the possibility that your position, since it survives solely by dismissing every contrary opinion (including from the Church herself), is inherently weak.

I understand that you consider Dulles’ understanding of Church teaching on punishment irrelevant, nonetheless he identifies four objectives for punishment. Can you tell me which one you believe means “redress”? The Church has said there is a primary objective of punishment: so - what is it?

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is a truism that innocents are more at risk from living guilty murderers than they are from executed guilty murderers, whether we are speaking of conditions in prison or in the free world.

Therefore, we know that executed murderers will provide greater protection for innocents and, therefore, a greater defense of society.

Therefore, execution, the greater protector of innocents, will "better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and is more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’, because both the common good and the dignity of all persons is supported to the choice to protect more innocents, as opposed to the choice of sparing more murderers, at the cost of sacrificing more innocents.

If the innocent can be protected by imprisoning murderers for life with no possibility of parole it is not true that execution is the greater protector of innocents (it might be an equal protector but it is not greater) nor is it true that it better corresponds to the concrete conditions of the common good (again, it might be that it conforms equally to the common good but it is not better) and it surely is not true that it is a better supporter of the dignity of all persons, as it is an affront to the dignity of the executed (who are included in the category of “all persons”).

The Church teaches that the death penalty should be used only when it is the only means of protecting the innocent.

 

[Ender]

it surely is not true that it is a better supporter of the dignity of all persons, as it is an affront to the dignity of the executed (who are included in the category of “all persons”).

Explain how being executed is an affront to that persons’ dignity.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Recall that I have no objection to capital punishment, if it’s necessary. I think that’s contrary to your position, and Ender’s, which claims that capital punishment is required, unless it creates a bigger problem. Two very different ideas!

JPII’s position was that capital punishment should not be used but could be applied if circumstances justified it. My position is that capital punishment should be used but could be excused if circumstances justified not applying it. I think most circumstances justify its use; JPII thought most circumstances did not. Don’t read more into my position than I put there.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Yes, I understand the point, and I do agree that both documents make a strong argument for setting aside the DP in this day and age. But that is not an official Church teaching. It is guidance about a teaching that applies to a particular time and place. This whole angle of the discussion is based on the conditions of a society and a time which are subject to change.

SNIP

.

Yes, they make a strong arguement, but it is utterly false, that is the major secular problem. It is as if they did no research before reaching this conclusion.

As I stated, earlier:

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

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)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. The authors of the Catechism appear to have no grasp of reality? (4)

The only known method of rendering a criminal “unable to inflict harm” is execution. “Unable to inflict harm” (2265) has the same meaning as “impossible to do harm”.

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) “Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require “rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to “innocent” murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again (4).

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 10/2003 , " . . . 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.’ "

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

contd

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 , tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-i…radise-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/…t_hood_muslims

UPDATE: “New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot”, foxnews.com/politics/2011…key-player-11/

UPDATE: al-Awlaki killed in a CIA drone strike - nor more a living threat.

d) " . . . Today’s prison inmates are willing to pay up to $10,000 for a smartphone that can allow them to run a drug ring, stalk their prey—and maybe even escape."

" . . . Parchman Mississippi State Penitentiary . . . shocked everyone when it blocked more than 216,000 texts and 600 phone calls in a (SINGLE MONTH) from within the prison walls."

In the first 9 months of 2011, California seized 11,400 cellphones from criminals behind bars.

"Smartphones Are the New Prison Contraband, Daily Beast, 10/16/11
thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/16/smartphones-in-prison-new-contraband-allows-inmates-to-make-money.htm

e) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqae…0924-g4no.html

f) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/securi…k_in_yemen.htm

g) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/…OLEwwD9CACTHG0

h) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11…ongoing-17934/

i) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
policeone.com/corrections…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.

j) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if she looked. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in contradiction of the curious ignorance within EV and 2267.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Explain how being executed is an affront to that persons’ dignity.

Ender

I can write a tome on this. In fact, I started to do so but lost my post when I was thrown off the Internet. I’m going to defer to the Holy See on this one because I think what he said is the most direct (and certainly most terse) response to your -]order/-] request.

In a position paper issued this month during the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris, the Vatican said that the death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity." Echoing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the paper noted that while governments have an obligation to protect their citizens, “today it truly is difficult to justify” using capital punishment when other means of protection, such as life in prison, are possible. The Vatican also gave support to all international campaigns to proclaim a moratorium on the use of capital punishment and the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

“The Holy See takes this occassion to welcome and affirm again its support for all initiatives aimed at defending the inherent and inviolable value of all human life . . . . Consciences have been awakened by the need for a great recognition of the inalienable dignity of human beings and by the universality and integrity of human rights, beginning with the right to life,” the Vatican stated. The Holy See added that the death penalty carries “numerous risks,” including the danger of punishing innocent people, and that capital punishment promotes “violent forms of revenge rather than a true sense of social justice.” The paper concluded that the death penalty contributes to a “culture of violence” and that for Christians it shows “a contempt for the Gospel teaching on forgiveness.”

deathpenaltyinfo.org/vatican-says-death-penalty-affront-human-dignity

The Holy See did not use your words. He did not say specifically that the use of the death penalty is specifically an affront to “that person’s” (I am assuming you are referring to the person who is executed) dignity. What he said afterward makes his meaning clear.

If you wish for me to provide an explanation of why dignity is inherent in all persons I will be happy to do so although it will take some time as I am ill today.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, they make a strong arguement, but it is utterly false, that is the major secular problem. It is as if they did no research before reaching this conclusion.

As I stated, earlier:

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

*Au contraire! *They *do *stand and have stood for years - and we, as Catholics (actually I have no idea if you are Catholic) are required to follow what has been presented by the Magisterium - the teaching *authority *of the Church.

 

[LittleSoldier]

JPII’s position was that capital punishment should not be used but could be applied if circumstances justified it. My position is that capital punishment should be used but could be excused if circumstances justified not applying it. I think most circumstances justify its use; JPII thought most circumstances did not. Don’t read more into my position than I put there.

Ender

I’m sorry, Ender. I’m confused about your position. Please bear with me and let me try to re-word it so that I can understand. OK - are you saying that you believe that the application of capital punishment could be excused even if circumstances justify not applying it? You used the word “excused” which is confusing to me. If circumstances justify not using capital punishment why would any moral person go on ahead and use it? Who “excuses” the use of capital punishment applied even though circumstances justify not applying it?

I do understand (I hope) what you mean by “most circumstances justify its use.” May I please ask which circumstances do not justify its use and why you feel that it is still excusable to use it even if those circumstances exist?

 

[Ender]

Does “retribution” mean “redress the disorder”? Until this question is answered it is not really possible to have a meaningful discussion of punishment. If we don’t understand the objectives of punishment how can we know any punishment is appropriate to the crime?

I know I’m not citing a Magisterial document but I’m hoping the sheer weight of comments on this point will convince people that retribution and redressing the disorder mean the same thing. The first comments are from Fr. Jim Achacoso on a blog maintained by the CBCP (Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines).

*Traditionally, punishment had been justified by three purposes:

(i) Retribution of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense, by depriving the offender of a good of a proportionate degree to that which was suffered by the offended, or—in the ultimate analysis—by the society. Hence, the punishment must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. In any case, retribution cannot be confused with revenge.*

fatherachacoso.blogspot.com/2010/06/crime-and-punishment-in-catholic-church.html

It is quite clear that Fr. Achacoso here equates retribution with redressing the disorder. He uses the terms interchangeably so there is no doubt about what he is saying.

Here is another analysis of the Catechism by E. Christian Brugger (Professor, Religious Studies, Loyola U) and again, he pointedly equates retribution with redress.

• The subsection briefly departs from this motif in no. 2266 to introduce punishment’s “primary purpose,” i.e.,** redressing the disorder** introduced by deliberate crime (i.e., retribution)

firstthings.com/article/2007/01/correspondence-46

*The comments from Professor Brugger were contained in a First Things article that also contained this comment from Charles E. Rice, Notre Dame Law School:

• Evangelium Vitae, no. 56, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2266, agree that “the primary aim” of punishment is the retributive one of “redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.”*

At some point it should be obvious that all of these people surely cannot be wrong and that retribution and redress are synonymous. The examples of learned individuals saying exactly the same thing on this point are virtually endless and while they disagree about other aspects of 2266 and 2267, on the meaning of retribution they all say exactly the same thing:

*Three justifications for punishment are given: retribution redressing the disorder caused by the crime, protection of society, and punishment’s medicinal value. *(Ralph McInerny, Notre Dame)

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m going to defer to the Holy See on this one:

In a position paper issued this month during the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Paris, the Vatican said that the death penalty "is not only a refusal of the right to life, but it also is an affront to human dignity."

This is a statement that the Vatican considers the death penalty an affront to human dignity. What I asked for was an explanation of why it is an affront. What makes it contrary to human dignity?

Ender