How do we make the death penalty unnecessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whichwaytogo47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whichwaytogo47

Guest
How do we make sure that prisoners whom are truly guilty of their crimes with premeditation serve life without the possibility of parole in solitary confinement if necessary.



CCC 2267 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. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”68.

But these days that situation is “very rare, if not practically non-existent!” I agree. But this would show that capital punishment is NOT an intrinsic evil. Why? If capital punishment were an intrinsic evil, the Catechism would say something like “ this act is never acceptable under any circumstances and at all times when this was regrettably carried out it was sinful.” But the Catechism doesn’t say anything like that. Well these days there is no situation that could possibly fulfill societal self-defense criteria for a serious criminal right? That is debatable. Let’s say in the depths of Nigeria with “bamboo jail bars” marauders can easily escape to do harm again. That society might find capital punishment their only protection. And in America even with life sentences we have seen many times probation committees and judges erroneously release dangerous criminals only to murder again. Even when kept in jail murderers have often murdered again in this country within the confines of imprisonment itself (prisoners murdering other prisoners or even prison employees for example). But the point here isn’t if we NEED capital punishment or not. The point here is that capital punishment, as taught by the Catholic Church DOES NOT REPRESENT AN INTRINSIC EVIL! That is the point. Any contrary claim is a misrepresentation of the Church’s teachings.
 
Last edited:
Actually you’re quoting an outdated version of the Catechism. Last year Pope Francis ordered this section revised to read that the death penalty is always “inadmissible”.
 
Believe this is the revised version.

“2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
 
I don’t think it conveys this at all. For sure an unrepentant criminal may indeed find his debt paid through capital punishment. The world could “go by the book” and live the old Law, finding it’s justification through it. Our judgment could be left to the coldness of a law book without exception. How convenient. We could return to stoning, that too addressed a wrong.

After sentencing I would be left with a dissatisfaction, a feeling of personal grieving of sorts. I feel seated in this conceptual funeral home of my mind and I want to hug all his relatives. I keep thinking of the mom’s of these criminals. Typically she spent her life in fast food joints trying to take home the rent money after her husband left her. Sometimes we hear that great god drugs told her she’s not going home to her son James tonite. Every day she starts a new one with hope for change. “I’ll see you tonite for supper”. At her prison visits she still gave him that hope. “One day you’ll be out once more”. Deep down she fears his suicide or being murdered. …yes, worried he would commit suicide.

Ignoring those attributes that cause us to take on a challenge of perfection, such as caring and fraternal love, and go beyond ourselves and become perfect, leaves us with a dry taste. That taste that further bridges us from the Father who we say doesn’t seem to “get it” by our obstinacy. Oh, we get lucid moments when his mercy finds it,s way to our biological loved one who gets a commuted sentence. And what about that mother who’s daughter was murdered, and had one last word to say to the criminal, “I forgive you”. The audacity we say.

We are called to go beyond what the defendant is owed to satisfy us. We strive to find our satisfaction through the new graces we were provided. It is what we are to be in emulation that “satisfies” us and Him. Jame’s mom did not know that God had a worthy task for him while he completed his punishment. He set the start of something redeeming for him, first made possible by instruction to the world through the Catechism. He will come to a life of prayer and through his suffering, and even grant that many others will be saved. He will repeat the mercy given to Dismas, but in a different way.

Payment for crime in this temporal world may come in many forms, either at once, or in combination where many sentences suffice for one payment. Added to these sentences, the temporal may involve purgatorial sentences to met out “justice”(as Christ worded it.). We now know why life should play out in this way for such an evil unrepentant person. The act still being intrinsically evil.

For 2000 years Christ set the attitude for change …for the whole world. This means the new Catholic community of Corinth should be the globe. If we were speaking to a Catholic globe today, there would be no concern for a false impression. Herein we find the root of the problem.

The OP read the right book. The world would have us believe it is only meant for God.
 
Last edited:
How do we make sure that prisoners whom are truly guilty of their crimes with premeditation serve life without the possibility of parole in solitary confinement if necessary.
You can’t since criminal justice system run by humans and humans are fallible hence death penalty necessary to ensure protection of society
 
Last edited:
What about mercy for repentant sinners? Why should they all spend a lifetime behind bars?

The US, at least, is probably more likely to execute a person who doesn’t deserve it than to have someone leave prison on parole when they are likely to recommit a heinous crime.
 
Can’t be sure of their guilt either. They might be mentally ill. They might have been framed. They might just be unlucky.
 
Can’t be sure of their guilt either. They might be mentally ill. They might have been framed. They might just be unlucky.
True. If the conviction is overturned they should be released. Until then anyone found guilty of a violent crime should not be free.
 
Well, OK, I’ll have to agree to differ with you. I think if you have an assessment and appear to be reformed after a lengthy sentence you should be set free on monitored unless it’s something particularly cold blooded and terrible.
 
You can’t since criminal justice system run by humans and humans are fallible hence death penalty necessary to ensure protection of society
Since humans are fallible, having a death penalty also ensures that some people will be unjustly executed. It’s highly likely the USA has already executed a number of innocent people. Even when a person has undoubtedly committed some offense, two people committing the exact same offense or involved in the exact same crime can end up with one being executed and the other (perhaps more culpable) one not being executed, simply based on factors like race, economic resources, quality of legal representation, which judge they got, and legal gamesmanship.

There is no way to apply the death penalty in a way that is completely fair and just and will never result in an unjust execution.
 
Last edited:
The US, at least, is probably more likely to execute a person who doesn’t deserve it than to have someone leave prison on parole when they are likely to recommit a heinous crime.
Although I do not support the death penalty, this statement makes no sense considering the very few executions the US does compared with the number of parolees who reoffend with heinous crimes.
 
The US, at least, is probably more likely to execute a person who doesn’t deserve it than to have someone leave prison on parole when they are likely to recommit a heinous crime.
You can be a repentant sinner but still not be rehabilitated. No one has the ability to decipher your level of repentance vs your risk of recidivism. And victims have the right to receive fair justice where you’re punished according to your crime, no more and no less. It’s why I am against three-strikes laws as people should be punished according to their crimes, thus if you murder someone with premeditation, you should spend the rest of your life in prison, while if it was reckless (aka manslaughter), you should serve a lot less time.
What about mercy for repentant sinners? Why should they all spend a lifetime behind bars?
That’s the problem with an anti-death penalty stance. We all have an obligation to forgive those whom have harmed us but that does not require the society to reduce their sentence. The person gets a bigger reward, an eternity in heaven and can do a lot of good work in prison.
Although I do not support the death penalty, this statement makes no sense considering the very few executions the US does compared with the number of parolees who reoffend with heinous crimes.
I agree. We have a huge problem with people getting premature parole where victims are not getting the justice they deserve from the crimes committed.
Well, OK, I’ll have to agree to differ with you. I think if you have an assessment and appear to be reformed after a lengthy sentence you should be set free on monitored unless it’s something particularly cold blooded and terrible.
What to you is a long sentence? To me a long sentence would be at least 10-15 years (20 years for a rape). Unfortunately some judges might interpret it to be merely a couple years or even just six months.

What is particularly cold-blooded and terrible? Some judges don’t even consider rape to be cold-blooded and terrible. That judge believes rapists can be rehabilitated, which simply in the vast majority of cases is just not true. If we can prove someone’s innocence, however, they should be released from jail.
 
Last edited:
Since humans are fallible, having a death penalty also ensures that some people will be unjustly executed. It’s highly likely the USA has already executed a number of innocent people.
I agree.
Even when a person has undoubtedly committed some offense, two people committing the exact same offense or involved in the exact same crime can end up with one being executed and the other (perhaps more culpable) one not being executed, simply based on factors like race, economic resources, quality of legal representation, which judge they got, and legal gamesmanship.

There is no way to apply the death penalty in a way that is completely fair and just and will never result in an unjust execution.
My problem with this is sometimes prosecutors will go with someone who is willing to snitch on the other rather than be harshest on the person who was the ring-leader for the crime.
 
My problem with this is sometimes prosecutors will go with someone who is willing to snitch on the other rather than be harshest on the person who was the ring-leader for the crime.
They do this all the time. The smartest guy in the group, who is also often the ringleader, does a deal. The dumber but less culpable guy who doesn’t know how to do a deal or doesn’t have the “connections” gets blamed for the crime and gets a heavier sentence.
 
Since humans are fallible, having a death penalty also ensures that some people will be unjustly executed
But death penalty involves far more stages of review hence far less risk to society than parole review. Hence why there is countless cases of innocent people killed by reoffenders, people released too early, etc and little or no cases of innocent people executed. Its about which involves less risk to society - death penalty or no death penalty. Yes both involve some risk, but one involves far less risk. Now if parole review, was modified to have the same level of scrutiny as death penalty review (for those convicted of murder, etc), that would greatly reduce the level of risk to society of imprisonment.
 
The primary end of capital punishment is the administration of justice to the criminal for the crime he committed, not to protect the community or deter future crime. These latter two are secondary ends, but not the primary ends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top