Do you support the death penalty?

[surritter]

So you too are in favor of executing a criminal based on the expectation that he might kill in the future rather than on the fact that he has killed in the past?

You know the correct interpretation of the Church’s teaching, so there’s no need to “bait” anyone. The Church teaches that the death penalty can be acceptable if necessary to protect society, but this is quite different from punishing the criminal for a future crime!

Recall the analogy of personal self-defense: If someone threatens you with a gun, it is permissible for you to take action to remove the threat, even if it involves harm to the perpetrator. This is not “punishing” him for a future gunshot; it is simply defending yourself.

Now extrapolate that to a dangerous murderer and the society at large. I should hope that you don’t have a problem with the Church accepting the death penalty in this realm of society’s self-defense. If I recall, however, your beef was that the Church seems to have shifted the focus from the retributive aspect to the purely self-defense aspect. That is a worthwhile debate. But to equate capital punishment with punishment for a future crime doesn’t worthwhile. And Holly was not anywhere close to the words that you’ve put in her mouth.

 

[Aquila_Lucis]

Recall the analogy of personal self-defense: If someone threatens you with a gun, it is permissible for you to take action to remove the threat, even if it involves harm to the perpetrator. This is not “punishing” him for a future gunshot; it is simply defending yourself.

Now extrapolate that to a dangerous murderer and the society at large. I should hope that you don’t have a problem with the Church accepting the death penalty in this realm of society’s self-defense. If I recall, however, your beef was that the Church seems to have shifted the focus from the retributive aspect to the purely self-defense aspect. That is a worthwhile debate.

You don’t have the choices in a warzone or in an armed attack that you do in a jury room. Assuming that a man is found guilty and sentenced to die, we would also assume that he would be in a prison cell–often for twenty years or more–while awaiting execution… removed from society, not committing crimes, not endangering anyone. So, what, then, does the lethal injection (or electricution, or firing squad, or noose) achieve? The criminal element was neutralized! The death penalty is simply a means for state-sanctioned revenge.

Yours in Christ,
Michael

 

[surritter]

You don’t have the choices in a warzone or in an armed attack that you do in a jury room. Assuming that a man is found guilty and sentenced to die, we would also assume that he would be in a prison cell–often for twenty years or more–while awaiting execution… removed from society, not committing crimes, not endangering anyone. So, what, then, does the lethal injection (or electricution, or firing squad, or noose) achieve? The criminal element was neutralized! The death penalty is simply a means for state-sanctioned revenge.

Correct. My statements (and the Church’s teachings) that the death penalty may sometimes be acceptable only come into play if a particular society is unable to contain the perpetrator by normal incarceration methods. Sorry for the confusion … I was pushing back on several posters in this thread who argue that the death penalty is required, in the vein of retributive justice, regardless of the security of the prison.

 

[Dirt]

Well do you?

No. Imprisonment from society is enough. God can Judge Life or Death.
All life is Sacred, whether in the Womb or in a Court Room.

 

[billsnaer]

It’s customary in most modern societies to not hold people responsible for crimes they have not yet committed. It’s not a trade-off and nobody knows if Jitka Vesel would have been spared if the death penalty had not been abolished. To know so would require omniscience.

Also, there is absolutely no way for human beings to determine if a person is guilty “beyond any doubt.” How do you suggest juries determine this? There is always doubt because human beings are, once again, not omniscient. “Beyond any doubt” implies God-like knowledge. We don’t have that. And that is why the only perfect judge is God.

Church teaching, as reflected in the CCC, states that the death penalty is appropriate when the innocent cannot be protected in any other way. We have the means to keep the innocent protected and this is what we should be doing. We should also be working to eliminate the inequities apparent in trials (racism, poverty, unethical behavior by judges, attorneys, the press, and others).

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIMES NOT YET COMMITTED: No, I am advocating tailoring the punishment for the crime that has been committed to achieve both just punishment and societal protection.

JITKA VESEL’S DEATH: We can** know that Vesel’s life would have been spared if there had been a death penalty in Illinois; her killer said so (see below.)

“BEYOND ANY DOUBT” DOES NOT REQUIRE GOD-LIKE KNOWLEDGE: Is there really any doubt that Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma? Is there any possible doubt about the guilt of the two men just sentenced to death for raping and incinerating Dr. Petit’s wife and daughters? The death penalty should not be imposed if that level of certainty is not present.

CATHOLIC TEACHING: Still allows the death penalty when it is the only way to protect the innocent. The argument is about whether the “innocent” must be restricted to future victims of the criminal for whom the death sentence is contemplated, or whether people like Jikta Vesel and future rape and abduction victims may be considered in the moral formula.

HERE IS WHAT DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE VESEL MURDER: Opponents of capital punishment deny its potential for prevention. Sister Helen Prejean spoke at a March, 2011 luncheon sponsored by the Center for Restorative Justice Works at St. Angela Marici Parish in Brea, California. She is known for her book, “Dead Man Walking,” that recounts her spiritual guidance of Elmo Patrick Sonnier before his execution.

Eight people from the Diocese of San Bernardino staff attended the event, and the diocesan newspaper enthusiastically covered the meeting. It reported that “Sr. Prejean spoke excitedly about the recent repeal of the death penalty in Illinois and urged California Catholics to push for the same in their state.” [California Senator Lori Hancock has introduced such a bill.]

Less than a month later, Jitka Vesel was murdered in Illinois. DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert Berlin revealed that, “The defendant did indicate that he researched whether Illinois had a death penalty and the defendant was aware that the death penalty had recently been abolished, so he knew then that he could go through with this plan.”

Sonnier makes an especially bad poster child for abolition activists. After raping a teenage girl, Sonnier and his brother killed her and her boyfriend because Sonnier did not want to go back to prison. He risked his life for that extra chance of avoiding apprehension. He represents the segment of criminals for whom the death penalty is not a deterrent. But the killer of Jitka Vesel represents the segment for whom the death penalty is a deciding factor. Is it not obvious that, without the death penalty, more rape victims and abducted children would be killed to improve the perpetrators’ chances of avoiding arrest?

It is a fundamental truth of human nature that we use less of things as the price increases; the economists call this “marginal demand.” True, not everyone buys a car that uses less gas, and not every murderer lays down his weapon for fear of the costly penalty of death. But, when one does, a life is saved.

The abolitionists have one good argument – the remote possibility that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because he was found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This problem could be resolved by changing the death penalty standard to “beyond any doubt.” Some murderers would then escape execution, but the lifesaving deterrence of the death penalty would be retained, and the fear of its unjust application removed.

In the end, it really is a trade-off. Whose life should pay for a vicious murder, the murderer’s, or that of an innocent victim like Vesel, who would have been spared if the death penalty had not been abolished?**

 

[LittleSoldier]

RESPONSIBILITY FOR CRIMES NOT YET COMMITTED: No, I am advocating tailoring the punishment for the crime that has been committed to achieve both just punishment and societal protection.****Agreed, but it seems to me that you are implying that the death penalty is the only appropriate penalty (please correct me if I am wrong about your position). If life in prison with no possibility of parole protects the innocent you are left only with “tailoring the punishment for the crime to achieve…just punishment.” What happened to protecting the innocent?

JITKA VESEL’S DEATH: We can

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

It is a fundamental truth of human nature that we use less of things as the price increases; the economists call this “marginal demand.” True, not everyone buys a car that uses less gas, and not every murderer lays down his weapon for fear of the costly penalty of death. But, when one does, a life is saved.

I thought we were discussing the death penalty here. What does buying cars and gas have to do with the death penalty? You’re comparing apples and kangaroos.

The abolitionists have one good argument – the remote possibility that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because he was found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This problem could be resolved by changing the death penalty standard to “beyond any doubt.” Some murderers would then escape execution, but the lifesaving deterrence of the death penalty would be retained, and the fear of its unjust application removed.

I think I already responded to this.

In the end, it really is a trade-off. Whose life should pay for a vicious murder, the murderer’s, or that of an innocent victim like Vesel, who would have been spared if the death penalty had not been abolished?

Why do you assume that a **life **should be forfeit? What about the CCC? What about the Magisterium? What about life in prison without the possibility of parole (although exoneration is always a possibility) and with safeguards adequate to protect the innocent? It seems that you keep returning to execution. Why?

With all due respect, I am not concerned with the reasons you became interested in any case. My interest is in Church teaching only and that’s why I didn’t respond to the rest of your post. Perhaps someone else will. I’m not saying it isn’t important; it’s just that I have to concentrate on one aspect and that is Church teaching as it relates to the protection of the innocent. I’ve tried to discuss punishment in the past and haven’t been able to debate it successfully (my posts were ignored, etc.). One thing I would like to point out is that I am NOT an abolitionist. It is clear to me that the death penalty is appropriate in certain, very limited situations. However, I do hope that eventually we will reach the point where the death penalty never is used again. We already executed one very holy, innocent person - Jesus.

 

[Bill1940]

The commentary has taken an interesting turn, being that the death penalty is justified to prevent someone from committing a crime. There is an obvious scenario in which that takes place, self-defense. If someone is intent upon taking my, or another’s innocent life, I have the right to respond with deadly force. That will almost invariably end with the demise of the assailant, as there is no choice but to shoot to kill in most cases. This presupposes that the government has not deprived all of us from possessing the means of self-defense. And, is that not like pulling the fangs and claws from the wild beasts? I think the use of capital punishment is otherwise rarely justified.

 

[billsnaer]

Agreed, but it seems to me that you are implying that the death penalty is the only appropriate penalty (please correct me if I am wrong about your position).

I have repeatedly made the point that the death penalty should only be used for the most heinous crimes, and only when the defendant is gulty “beyond any doubt.”

No, we can not know. All we can know is that there was no death penalty in Illinois when the alleged crime took place. Beyond that there are too many factors to be taken into consideration. What if the alleged killer lied? They often do that, you know. Or: What if he had been left in a maximum security prison with appropriate safeguards? Then he could not have murdered Vesel, could he?

It is necessary to understand the Vesel murder in order to understand my argument. The murderer did tell the district attorney that he researched the status of the Illinois death penalty in the process of making up his mind to kill Vesel. She could not have been protected by his imprisonment because he had not yet killed her. It is clear however, that he was not willing to risk his own life by murdering her. There is no reasonable argument that he lied about this.

There is *always *doubt, even if the alleged perpetrator is found holding a smoking gun and subsequently makes a full confession. Remember that guilt includes culpability. Do you know everything that happened to the perpetrators from conception up to and including the times they allegedly committed their crimes?

We are talking here about legal responsibility, not go-to-hell moral guilt. Is guilt in the sight of God required only for capital punishment? What about LWOP? 25 to life? I suggest that, except in clear cases of insanity or severe diminished capacity, criminal responsibility should be divorced from moral culpability.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,** if this is the only** possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

The argument I am making is that the Vesel murder demonstrates that the absence of the death penalty constitutes a failure to protect human life from the unjust aggressor. The changes in Paragraphs 2266-2267 of the Catholic Catechism 2nd Edition, just three years after the 1st Edition was published still did not proscribe capital punishment, but they have encouraged the interpretation that the “unjust aggressor” is only and specifically the criminal currently being sentenced.

We are required to bow to the teachings of the Magisterium.

There are different levels of obligation to this requirement depending upon the solemnity of the pronouncement and whether the teaching was from the Pope, or some combination of Bishops and possibly the Pope. Catholics are certainly obligated to give very serious consideration to the Popes’ views, but I could not possibly sign on to a range of fallible papal pronouncements made during my own adult life.

I am skeptical of Pope John XXIII’s assertion, “that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace.” His suggestion, “that workers gradually come to share in the ownership of their company,” is only sometimes prudent and practical. His observation that, “ Members [of unions] are no longer recruited in order to agitate, but rather to co-operate, principally by the method of collective bargaining” is not what I observed in Wisconsin. And, I thought his pronouncement that nuclear weapons should be “banned” lacked more than a little practicality.

I certainly reject Pope Paul VI’s judgment that the use of atomic weapons to end WWII was impermissible. And, I object to Pope John Paul II’s likening of Hiroshima to Auschwitz.

Much as I admired Pope John Paul II, I thought it was not constructive for him to write: “We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called ‘Real Socialism’ leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization.”

There is positive direction to be gained from these pronouncements, but it is unreasonable to expect Catholics to feel a moral obligation to believe them in a literal way, and strictly express them in their public lives.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[billsnaer]

-----continuation of last post-----

I thought we were discussing the death penalty here. What does buying cars and gas have to do with the death penalty? You’re comparing apples and kangaroos.

You criticize my analysis of the deterrent potential of the death penalty in terms of “marginal demand” My point was that humans buy less of what costs more, so criminals should opt for less murders that may cost their lives. Although this New York Times article does not use the term, “marginal demand,” that is the principle that the economists were observing in their consensus that the death sentence favors deterrence, i.e., “defends human lives against the unjust agressor.” nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all

I’m not saying it isn’t important; it’s just that I have to concentrate on one aspect and that is Church teaching as it relates to the protection of the innocent.

We agree on the goal of protecting the innocent. I have tried to make it clear that my “beyond all doubt” standard protects the innocent who is wrongly accused, and the death penalty protects some innocent victims like Jikta Vesel. The prevailing interpretation of Catholic teaching stresses the former and ignores the latter.

One thing I would like to point out is that I am NOT an abolitionist. It is clear to me that the death penalty is appropriate in certain, very limited situations.

Now we are getting close to a productive conversation. We both agree that the death penalty should sometimes be employed. Let’s see if we can agree on some of the situations in which it would be appropriate. Here is my partial list:

• Prisoner serving LWOP kills prison guard.
• Criminal kills law officer trying to arrest him in hope of escape.
• Kidnapper kills child to minimize chance of identification.
• Rapist kills victim to reduce chance of identification.
• Murderer tortured his victim before the murder.

I will be very interested to see which of these you wish to remove from the list.

 

[Ender]

The Church teaches that the death penalty can be acceptable if necessary to protect society, but this is quite different from punishing the criminal for a future crime!

Is it? If I cannot be executed for having murdered someone in the past then how is it that - according to 2267 - I may be executed if it is believed that I will murder someone in the future?

Recall the analogy of personal self-defense: If someone threatens you with a gun, it is permissible for you to take action to remove the threat, even if it involves harm to the perpetrator. This is not “punishing” him for a future gunshot; it is simply defending yourself.

The teaching on self-defense is laid out in 2263:* “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor … the one is intended, the other is not.”* The problem here is that in this case the killing of the aggressor is directly intended. Protection flows directly from the death of the prisoner so it is hard to see how the principle of double effect is applicable given that one of the (4) criteria is that* “The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect but must come directly from the action itself”.* (Catholicism & Ethics, p.55).

Now extrapolate that to a dangerous murderer and the society at large. I should hope that you don’t have a problem with the Church accepting the death penalty in this realm of society’s self-defense.

Yes and no. Protection is one of the four valid objectives of punishment but of itself cannot justify executing someone. It is retributive justice alone that can justify such punishment. That is, if the crime the person committed does not warrant the punishment of execution then a person may not be executed even if that is the only means of achieving protection. If you ignore the demands of retributive justice then there is nothing - including protection - that justifies executing someone.

If I recall, however, your beef was that the Church seems to have shifted the focus from the retributive aspect to the purely self-defense aspect.

Well, I don’t think that’s what has happened, but I certainly oppose that perception.

That is a worthwhile debate. But to equate capital punishment with punishment for a future crime doesn’t worthwhile. And Holly was not anywhere close to the words that you’ve put in her mouth.

I don’t think you accurately recognize the situation 2267 creates. It says that a person may be executed to provide protection, and that is the only condition where it recognizes capital punishment as valid. That is, it allows a person to be executed to prevent future crimes and whether you call that self-defense or punishment the result is the same.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So, what, then, does the lethal injection (or electrocution, or firing squad, or noose) achieve?

It achieves the primary objective of punishment which is … justice. The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and her position on capital punishment has been based God’s command in Gen 9:6 that: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (CCC 2260) It is astonishing that the concept of justice has become so completely obliterated from discussions of punishment that it is no longer even recognized as a valid objective, let alone the primary objective.

The criminal element was neutralized! The death penalty is simply a means for state-sanctioned revenge.

Yes, that’s pretty much true but what you fail to recognize is that vengeance (properly understood) is the state’s responsibility.

“Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” (Aquinas)

Nor is the objection that God’s claim that “Vengeance is mine” mean the state may not punish the wicked since:

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Innocent I)

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Aquinas)

Ender

 

[White_Peony]

Why is executing a murderer to show that murder is wrong, illogical?

 

[surritter]

Ender, I’m confused about your stance.

Me (post 709): If I recall, however, your beef was that the Church seems to have shifted the focus from the retributive aspect to the purely self-defense aspect.

You (post 719): Well, I don’t think that’s what has happened, but I certainly oppose that perception.

Me: To equate capital punishment with punishment for a future crime doesn’t [seem] worthwhile.

You: I don’t think you accurately recognize the situation 2267 creates. It says that a person may be executed to provide protection, and that is the only condition where it recognizes capital punishment as valid. That is, it allows a person to be executed to prevent future crimes and whether you call that self-defense or punishment the result is the same.

In your first response above, you claim that the Church hasn’t shifted its focus from retribution to self-defense. Yet in your second response above, you portray 2267 as having done just that. I don’t mean to knock your response, but I wish to point out that your contradictory statements illustrate why there can be several interpretations of the Church’s teaching on this matter, and they are all correct. The only definitive stance of the Church is that we cannot say that the death penalty is always and intrinsically wrong.

Also, you explain the double-effect aspect of personal self-defense, and then at the end of your post to say that it doesn’t matter (in the case of the DP) because “the result is the same.” The very point of the teaching on double effect is that the end may be the same, but the morality of the action is quite different because of the reason that the action is taken. So to execute someone for “future punishment” is fraught with totally different issues than executing someone for society’s self-defense. That is why you response to Holly was irrelevant to her original statement.

 

[Ender]

In your first response above, you claim that the Church hasn’t shifted its focus from retribution to self-defense.

It is certainly true that 2267 has shifted the discussion of capital punishment from retribution to self-defense. If, however, 2267 represents JPII’s prudential opinion - as I believe it does - then it is not true to say that the Church has shifted her position. That’s the distinction I make.

I wish to point out that your contradictory statements illustrate why there can be several interpretations of the Church’s teaching on this matter, and they are all correct.

My statements were unclear, not contradictory, and while there may be several valid interpretations of Church teaching, they cannot be contradictory and remain valid. If two statements are contradictory then at least one of them must be wrong.

The only definitive stance of the Church is that we cannot say that the death penalty is always and intrinsically wrong.

Over the course of 2000 years the Church has had a great deal more to say on capital punishment than just this. Are we to ignore everything else she taught on this subject prior to 1995?

Also, you explain the double-effect aspect of personal self-defense, and then at the end of your post to say that it doesn’t matter (in the case of the DP) because “the result is the same.” The very point of the teaching on double effect is that the end may be the same, but the morality of the action is quite different because of the reason that the action is taken.

OK, that’s a valid point, but can you respond to my comments about why the principle of double effect cannot apply in this case?

So to execute someone for “future punishment” is fraught with totally different issues than executing someone for society’s self-defense.

I’m sure you realize that nowhere in this country is there a law that allows capital punishment solely for protection. The way you describe 2267 has it permitting something that Western civilizations have never tolerated.

Ender

 

[surritter]

Thanks for the clarifications. I’ll try to respond but also try to avoid falling into old ruts that we’ve discussed ad nausem…

It is certainly true that 2267 has shifted the discussion of capital punishment from retribution to self-defense. If, however, 2267 represents JPII’s prudential opinion - as I believe it does - then it is not true to say that the Church has shifted her position. That’s the distinction I make.

Fair enough. I have tried to stay out of this thread lately, so I forgot your stance on 2267, and it’s one I am not opposed to.

My statements were unclear, not contradictory, and while there may be several valid interpretations of Church teaching, they cannot be contradictory and remain valid.

Right. And this is where I point out that the retributive element has never been officially taught by the Church as being the sole reason necessary for capital punishment (just as you see 2267 as not being official teaching). So there is no contradiction in teaching, even if current Church statements are laid beside the Catechism of Trent or other writings.

Over the course of 2000 years the Church has had a great deal more to say on capital punishment than just this. Are we to ignore everything else she taught on this subject prior to 1995?

No, but neither are we to declare that all pre-1995 statements on capital punishment were doctrinal/official statements.

OK, that’s a valid point, but can you respond to my comments about why the principle of double effect cannot apply in this case?

Not sure what you mean here. I gathered that you were the one claiming that the double-effect principle doesn’t apply when discussing the DP! I base this on your statement that since the “end result” was the same, that we can claim the DP as being for future punishment just as well as we can claim that it’s for society’s defense; they’re no different. I jumped into the debate because I see them as completely different! The term “future punishment” is simply another term for “future retribution,” which was the vein you champion, whereas the stance about self-defense is in a different vein.

I don’t want to re-hash all the old posts about redress, retribution, etc. My only point was that “future punishment” has never been on the radar (yours, mine, Holly’s, or the Church’s) for why a criminal would be executed.

I’m sure you realize that nowhere in this country is there a law that allows capital punishment solely for protection.

Totally irrelevant. I have always tried to keep the focus on the morality of capital punishment in the broad theological sense, not whether a society in a particular place and time is using it correctly.

 

[Ender]

No, but neither are we to declare that all pre-1995 statements on capital punishment were doctrinal/official statements.

It is perhaps true that not all pre-1995 statements were doctrinal statements but it is surely true that those made in the Catechism of Trent were. Given that 2267 appears to dismiss/nullify/overrule what that catechism taught, you can see the problem.

I gathered that you were the one claiming that the double-effect principle doesn’t apply when discussing the DP!

True, I don’t believe that it does for the reasons I cited earlier.

I base this on your statement that since the “end result” was the same, that we can claim the DP as being for future punishment just as well as we can claim that it’s for society’s defense; they’re no different.

Carelessness on my part caused you to assume something that wasn’t meant. I think one reason this discussion goes awry is that we likely have different understandings about the nature and meaning of punishment. There can be, for example, no such thing as future punishment; punishment relates solely to actions committed, not threats. “A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction." (Pius XII) Where there has been no fault there can be no penalty. On the other hand, I seriously doubt that anyone in the Church interprets 2267 as permitting executions solely to achieve security. What is unsaid in that section is that both the threat of future harm plus the commission of a past crime serious enough to warrant the death penalty are required before someone can be executed.

I have always tried to keep the focus on the morality of capital punishment in the broad theological sense, not whether a society in a particular place and time is using it correctly.

The belief that 2267 allows executions to achieve security makes the Church less moral than secular societies which disavow such action. This was the reason I challenged Holly’s statement.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have repeatedly made the point that the death penalty should only be used for the most heinous crimes, and only when the defendant is gulty “beyond any doubt.”

Thanks for pointing out my error. Somehow I missed that. My apologies. I think we agree, then, except for your “beyond any doubt” and that is because I don’t believe human beings can make that determination - only God. But then I also don’t think that God expects us to be able to do what only He can do. What I do know is that something is wrong with our system and that we need to correct the problems and do the best we possibly can do - using God as our example and His mercy and understanding as our goals.

It is necessary to understand the Vesel murder in order to understand my argument. The murderer did tell the district attorney that he researched the status of the Illinois death penalty in the process of making up his mind to kill Vesel. She could not have been protected by his imprisonment because he had not yet killed her. It is clear however, that he was not willing to risk his own life by murdering her. There is no reasonable argument that he lied about this. We are talking here about legal responsibility, not go-to-hell moral guilt. Is guilt in the sight of God required only for capital punishment? What about LWOP? 25 to life? I suggest that, except in clear cases of insanity or severe diminished capacity, criminal responsibility should be divorced from moral culpability.

I think that perhaps I am referring to “go-to-hell, moral guilt.” IMO that is what we should be aiming for in determining guilt, especially if we are aiming for “beyond all doubt.” Of course we can’t do that perfectly but it provides a goal for which we should always be aiming. Legal responsibility, if achieved via a *fair *trial (and I have my doubts that fair trials ever exist) is the best we can do at this point. But how does one remove culpability from criminal responsibility? “Responsibility” has to include culpability. There is no way the two can be separated because culpability is part of responsibility. And we can’t usually determine culpability.

Although I can’t know for sure I will concede that he did not lie (although murderers do lie. A lot.). I see your point in that he could not be imprisoned for a crime he had not committed. But if guilt of murder (at least first-degree) established by a fair trial ALWAYS resulted in a sentence of LWOP (REAL LWOP) and true security, it wouldn’t have made any difference as to the state in which he committed the murder. I’m for states’ rights and for the federal government to keep its hands off those rights but I think that for crimes such as murder there should be a federal law applicable to all states.

I see a problem with insanity and severe diminished capacity. What I usually see happening with both is that the defense “proves” insanity (and/or severe diminished capacity) exists while the prosecution “proves” that neither exists. Which “expert” is to be believed? Jury members are usually not mental health experts themselves (if they are they will probably not be accepted as jury members) and have to rely on “expert” testimony (even mental health experts who test, interview, and observe and attempt to correctly access insanity and severe diminished capacity do not agree with other mental health experts who are doing the same thing. It’s certainly not an exact science. Adding in the factors of being paid for one’s work and sometimes a lack of ethics, I find it no surprise that two “experts”, one working for the defense and one for the prosecution, will report completely conflicting opinions.

The argument I am making is that the Vesel murder demonstrates that the absence of the death penalty constitutes a failure to protect human life from the unjust aggressor. The changes in Paragraphs 2266-2267 of the Catholic Catechism 2nd Edition, just three years after the 1st Edition was published still did not proscribe capital punishment, but they have encouraged the interpretation that the “unjust aggressor” is only and specifically the criminal currently being sentenced.

I agree that the absence of the death penalty can constitute a failure to protect innocent human life. I think perhaps we have been talking past each other (and probably my fault).

There are different levels of obligation to this requirement depending upon the solemnity of the pronouncement and whether the teaching was from the Pope, or some combination of Bishops and possibly the Pope. Catholics are certainly obligated to give very serious consideration to the Popes’ views, but I could not possibly sign on to a range of fallible papal pronouncements made during my own adult life.

It’s my understanding that if a Pope’s statement is not made on a matter of faith and morals and is not ex cathedra we are not required to believe it and accept it as a matter of our faith.

There is positive direction to be gained from these pronouncements, but it is unreasonable to expect Catholics to feel a moral obligation to believe them in a literal way, and strictly express them in their public lives.

Sorry, I had to cut your examples due to space contraints. As these are not *ex cathedra *statements nor Magisterial teachings, the faithful are not required to accept them as part of their faith. They are opinions expressed by fallible human beings.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It achieves the primary objective of punishment which is … justice. The Church teaches that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and her position on capital punishment has been based God’s command in Gen 9:6 that: *“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his *blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” (CCC 2260) It is astonishing that the concept of justice has become so completely obliterated from discussions of punishment that it is no longer even recognized as a valid objective, let alone the primary objective.

Ender

It is astonishing to me that punishment is held aloft above mercy and forgiveness. God will forgive the sin of murder. We should do the same, otherwise we are not being as God-like as we can be. And if one murders and does not repent and atone, one certainly does not choose God and will not be required to spend eternity with Him.

I’ve asked this before (not to you) and received no response so I am going to ask again. What about Cain? Surely he shed the blood of Abel, yet God put a mark upon him to protect him from being executed. If whoever sheds the blood of man shall have his blood shed why didn’t God allow that to happen to Cain? Shouldn’t Cain have been punished? Wouldn’t that have been justice? We know for a fact that Cain was guilty of murder, yet God spared him!

 

[LittleSoldier]

The belief that 2267 allows executions to achieve security makes the Church less moral than secular societies which disavow such action. This was the reason I challenged Holly’s statement.

Ender

This is what Holly wrote:

No, I definitely do not support the death penalty. The only possible way that I can think of that the death penalty would be justified is if there is absolutely no other possible way of keeping society safe from the violent criminal. This is incredibly rare in today’s world.

I agree with Holly. And I don’t believe that this makes the Church less moral than secular societies which disavow such action. It actually makes the Church more moral because it extols the virtues of mercy and forgiveness - virtues taught to us by Jesus.

If we don’t need to take the God-given life of a human being we shouldn’t. I’m amazed that people exist who believe we should. In fact, I’m astounded. What was someone’s signature? “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” It’s not true. Mercy to the guilty is God-like, not cruelty to anyone.