A
- Status
I
Inquiringperson
Guest
Using the logic of “who would want to live the rest of their life in prison”, one could also justify euthanasia by saying “who would want to die naturally of a deadly disease killing them”.
N
Nate13
Guest
There was something like a total of 40 executions last year in the entire United States. Why is this issue even on people’s radar especially those who do not even live in Texas? California has executed 13 people total since 1976.
B
BlindManWalking
Guest
Do you people realize what life in prison means?
It’s savagery. It’s raped repeatedly because you have the bad misfortune of being a smaller guy, or it’s the reality that to survive you have to do some sick and twisted things; it’s nothing anyone should live in for 30, 40, 50 years. I mean, for the love of God, to imprison someone for life in those conditions is basically to sentence them to a savage life and a brutal death for the most part. Especially in these privately run joints, as “federal” or “state” as they may be.
What a cruel bunch you are. May I be convicted in Saudi Arabia if I commit a crime, for your lot would have me be tortured by default for instead to soothe your rabidly backwards consciences.
Completely deplorable, the lot of ya.
At least enforce a change in the prison system, such as in certain Scandinavian countries if you insist on this ridiculous notion of “morality” and lifetime prison sentences.
Just kill the bastard and do him a favor. 2 years, 1 appeal, and a year of catechesis courtesy of the friendly prison chaplain. First and Last confession in the space of 2 years possibly.
Life in prison? In those conditions?
You’re all oblivious to evil so conveniently misunderstood.
It’s savagery. It’s raped repeatedly because you have the bad misfortune of being a smaller guy, or it’s the reality that to survive you have to do some sick and twisted things; it’s nothing anyone should live in for 30, 40, 50 years. I mean, for the love of God, to imprison someone for life in those conditions is basically to sentence them to a savage life and a brutal death for the most part. Especially in these privately run joints, as “federal” or “state” as they may be.
What a cruel bunch you are. May I be convicted in Saudi Arabia if I commit a crime, for your lot would have me be tortured by default for instead to soothe your rabidly backwards consciences.
Completely deplorable, the lot of ya.
At least enforce a change in the prison system, such as in certain Scandinavian countries if you insist on this ridiculous notion of “morality” and lifetime prison sentences.
Just kill the bastard and do him a favor. 2 years, 1 appeal, and a year of catechesis courtesy of the friendly prison chaplain. First and Last confession in the space of 2 years possibly.
Life in prison? In those conditions?
You’re all oblivious to evil so conveniently misunderstood.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Insulting the intelligence of your fellow forum members is not really a good way to go. We are not deplorable, and we’re not oblivious.Do you people realize what life in prison means?
It’s savagery. It’s raped repeatedly because you have the bad misfortune of being a smaller guy, or it’s the reality that to survive you have to do some sick and twisted things; it’s nothing anyone should live in for 30, 40, 50 years. I mean, for the love of God, to imprison someone for life in those conditions is basically to sentence them to a savage life and a brutal death for the most part. Especially in these privately run joints, as “federal” or “state” as they may be.
What a cruel bunch you are. May I be convicted in Saudi Arabia if I commit a crime, for your lot would have me be tortured by default for instead to soothe your rabidly backwards consciences.
Completely deplorable, the lot of ya.
At least enforce a change in the prison system, such as in certain Scandinavian countries if you insist on this ridiculous notion of “morality” and lifetime prison sentences.
Just kill the bastard and do him a favor. 2 years, 1 appeal, and a year of catechesis courtesy of the friendly prison chaplain. First and Last confession in the space of 2 years possibly.
Life in prison? In those conditions?
You’re all oblivious to evil so conveniently misunderstood.
A
A_G
Guest
Your heart is in the right place, my friend. Here’s how I look at it…
- Abortion = murder = always wrong! We must be Pro-Life!!
- Death Penalty = killing for the defense of good and justice.
Don’t tell me Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, etc… deserve to be taken care of in jail while our money supports them for life. It is not about revenge, rather it is about protecting society. I feel the death penalty should be rarely used. However, it should be available for those extreme cases.
And in terms of being justified, killing is justified when God allows it. It happens many times in the Holy Bible where God allows and commands it.
E
Ender
Guest
The problem with this notion is that security is not the primary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective that determines the validity of any punishment, not one of the secondary objectives like protection.
This is surely a debatable claim but in any event it is a prudential judgment which we are free to reject.
Yes, it does. The State has the obligation to impose a penalty commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is why really, really bad crimes demand the severest of penalties.
This is not correct. The primary objective of punishment is in fact retribution and the Church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment in that regard.
*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles)
The Church has never used that incident to form her position on capital punishment. The central scripture passage in her understanding of capital punishment is (as Cardinal Dulles noted above) Gen 9:6 -* “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed…”*
The morality of capital punishment has been recognized by the Church for 2000 years and its use is as moral today as it ever was.
Ender
A
Armyvet007
Guest
“The problem with this notion is that security is not the primary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective that determines the validity of any punishment, not one of the secondary objectives like protection”
Yes it is. Crimes are determined in a large part by the impact said act would have on the health of the community. If crimes are determined by this, then one should assume security [as in detering furhter similar acts] plays a rather large role in regards to punishment. Public hangings weren’t held just to punish the criminal; they were publicaly held as a means to deter others from commiting said crimes [safeguard the community]. Even modern death penalty advocates claim it serves as a deterent. So, security [safeguarding the community] is a primary concern when it comes to punishments.
“This is surely a debatable claim but in any event it is a prudential judgment which we are free to reject.”
As is your above comment. Especially since it doesn’t bother to support itself.
“Yes, it does. The State has the obligation to impose a penalty commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is why really, really bad crimes demand the severest of penalties”
Commensurate does not equal the same. A theif does not have all his stuff stolen from him, an abuser is not himself abused, etc. Additionally, one has to take into account the rather unjust [here used in regards to the concept of justice, not as in “unfair”] way in which the death penalty has been applied in the US legal system [crimes deserving it change over time, plea deals to get out of it, innocent people put to death/on death row]. Given this, even if commensurate did equal the same, the unjust [see above] nature of our legal system would morally invalidate its use.
“This is not correct. The primary objective of punishment is in fact retribution and the Church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment in that regard.”
Retribution does not equal vengence [the term I used]. Retribution does play a role, but vengence does not. Retribution is based on morality, vengence is not. And, as I pointed out above, our legal system and the application of the death penalty isn’t very moral [and frankly isn’t centered around morality to begin with].
“The Church has never used that incident to form her position on capital punishment. The central scripture passage in her understanding of capital punishment is (as Cardinal Dulles noted above) Gen 9:6 - “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed…””
The “first stone” comment was more of a response to the rather unthought out, slogan like “crimes that deserve death should…” comments then a statement of the Church’s teachings. “Flippant” would be an accurate description of my remark.
“The morality of capital punishment has been recognized by the Church for 2000 years and its use is as moral today as it ever was.”
And where exactly did I argue that the Church did not recognize the morality of it? My statement was that in the US today, it is not moral.
Yes it is. Crimes are determined in a large part by the impact said act would have on the health of the community. If crimes are determined by this, then one should assume security [as in detering furhter similar acts] plays a rather large role in regards to punishment. Public hangings weren’t held just to punish the criminal; they were publicaly held as a means to deter others from commiting said crimes [safeguard the community]. Even modern death penalty advocates claim it serves as a deterent. So, security [safeguarding the community] is a primary concern when it comes to punishments.
“This is surely a debatable claim but in any event it is a prudential judgment which we are free to reject.”
As is your above comment. Especially since it doesn’t bother to support itself.
“Yes, it does. The State has the obligation to impose a penalty commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is why really, really bad crimes demand the severest of penalties”
Commensurate does not equal the same. A theif does not have all his stuff stolen from him, an abuser is not himself abused, etc. Additionally, one has to take into account the rather unjust [here used in regards to the concept of justice, not as in “unfair”] way in which the death penalty has been applied in the US legal system [crimes deserving it change over time, plea deals to get out of it, innocent people put to death/on death row]. Given this, even if commensurate did equal the same, the unjust [see above] nature of our legal system would morally invalidate its use.
“This is not correct. The primary objective of punishment is in fact retribution and the Church has always recognized the validity of capital punishment in that regard.”
Retribution does not equal vengence [the term I used]. Retribution does play a role, but vengence does not. Retribution is based on morality, vengence is not. And, as I pointed out above, our legal system and the application of the death penalty isn’t very moral [and frankly isn’t centered around morality to begin with].
“The Church has never used that incident to form her position on capital punishment. The central scripture passage in her understanding of capital punishment is (as Cardinal Dulles noted above) Gen 9:6 - “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed…””
The “first stone” comment was more of a response to the rather unthought out, slogan like “crimes that deserve death should…” comments then a statement of the Church’s teachings. “Flippant” would be an accurate description of my remark.
“The morality of capital punishment has been recognized by the Church for 2000 years and its use is as moral today as it ever was.”
And where exactly did I argue that the Church did not recognize the morality of it? My statement was that in the US today, it is not moral.
A
A_G
Guest
If the death penalty is law, it is then fine. God wants us to follow and obey laws. Only when the laws are contradicting God’s laws/teaching, are we to challenge those laws and rebel against them (just as St. Peter did in Acts).
C
Cristiano
Guest
You are correct Texas rather picks the fight against abortion. I think that the fight against abortion should be the first and primary step because if we do not respect the right to life of an innocent human being then we do not have a lot of moral ground to fight for the protection of criminals. Once we get the community to really understand the moral grounds to fight abortion then we have a better chance to fight all the unnecessary cases of death penalty. With that I do not imply that while we fight against abortion we should not remind people that the same moral grounds apply to people on the death row.
A
anp1215
Guest
I agree with you. Once the right to life is established in the womb the next logical step is to establish the right to life for everyone. We of course should be fighting for them simultaneously, but ending abortion is the primary objective right now.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Yes and I think that the Catholic Church in Texas is already fighting against unnecessary death penalties through a social effort but not a legislative one yet.
A
anp1215
Guest
I am not sure being very new to the Church. I think our situation is reversed here in Texas, as opposed to other parts of the country, such as the West Coast, Pacific Northwest, New England: I think here it’s much easier for the priests and Bishops to speak out against abortion. We are a largely anti-abortion state (praise God!) and so they are largely “preaching to the choir” in that respect (not that they shouldn’t continue preaching it!). But when it comes to the death penalty, say anything against its use and people are liable to stone you. People are not very receptive to that at all.
C
Cristiano
Guest
You are probably right. I think that in general people are angry, and quite divided on political and social issues. You also have to understand that even if Texas has a strong Christian influence it is quit a bit of “sola scriptura” influence and thus the case against the common use of the death penalty is more difficult even from a moral point of view. Here people put their hearts in their causes but sadly some arguments require more time, reflection and background than a lot of people are willing to resource. As Catholics we have an obligation to share our resources for the common good even if it it might take a very long time.
A
anp1215
Guest
Yes, absolutely. Texas is 28% Catholic and therefore the largest single denomination, but when you add up the Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, other Christians, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, they are over half of the population. So that is a majority sola scriptura influence.
E
Ender
Guest
The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles)
Security (like rehabilitation and deterrence) is a valid objective of punishment but they are all secondary. The primary objective is retribution.
The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (2266)
*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Very true. I was making the point that the nature of the punishment is determined by the nature of the crime
This is another prudential assertion about which everyone is free to decide for himself. You think it is true so it would be immoral for you to support capital punishment. I think it is false so my support of capital punishment is not.
This is incorrect. Vengeance is not the evil action it is generally portrayed as.
*
**Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. *…
*He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” *(Aquinas)
Ender
A
Armyvet007
Guest
“The primary objective is retribution.”
Your own quote defeats this- “Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles)”
According to Cardinal Dulles, there are 4 primary objectives of punishment. Even if we assume the good Cardinal did not list them in order of importance, retribution is still only 1 of 4 primary objectives.
“This is incorrect. Vengeance is not the evil action it is generally portrayed as”
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
2302 [incomplete citation] “**To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” **but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” Notice the use of “restitution” instead of an alternate definition/clarification of “good” vengence.
Add to this the fact that your source does not use the word “vengence” but instead “retribution.” The concept behind the words do not equal.
As I’ve stated before, the death penalty is moral [within the restrictions defined by the Church], it is not moral in the US [it fails to meet these restrictions].
Your own quote defeats this- “Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles)”
According to Cardinal Dulles, there are 4 primary objectives of punishment. Even if we assume the good Cardinal did not list them in order of importance, retribution is still only 1 of 4 primary objectives.
“This is incorrect. Vengeance is not the evil action it is generally portrayed as”
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
2302 [incomplete citation] “**To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” **but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” Notice the use of “restitution” instead of an alternate definition/clarification of “good” vengence.
Add to this the fact that your source does not use the word “vengence” but instead “retribution.” The concept behind the words do not equal.
As I’ve stated before, the death penalty is moral [within the restrictions defined by the Church], it is not moral in the US [it fails to meet these restrictions].
E
EddyDRR
Guest
I’ll just address this since the rest of your post was sort of built on it.
Variety of ends is not equal to must meet all 4. In fact, Cardinal Dulles doesn’t say at all what you’ve said. He said exactly what Ender said.
A reduction to a variety of ends means just that. Not that the 4 must converge into an objective end, but that they are parallel and might be independent of each other.
That you don’t like, or can’t see, how the death penalty is very much OK still in the states just means you wish to then foist upon society the concurrent punishment of the individual.
Why should society be punished for what the criminal did anymore than I should have to pay for some woman’s contraception?
The death penalty isn’t immoral, whereas contraception is.
You’re painting yourself into a very undesirable corner when this is really stepped back from and looked at.
It’s not popular or even stomachable. But it is; and what it’s not, is wrong.
S
spiral
Guest
From a purely economic standpoint, $1200 to execute a murderer is vastly less than the $47,000 per year it costs to house him in prison. (source) If the person commits the murder when they’re 30, and the average life expectancy is 75, then that’s 45 years we’re paying to give them free room and board, at a total cost of $2,115,000 to the taxpayer over their lifetime. By comparison, the average worker only receives $265,680 in social security benefits over their lifetime. (www.socialsecurity.gov) Are convicted murderers really worth 8 times more to society than a retiree who has never committed a crime? Because we’re paying them as if they are.
All that’s only to address the economic aspect of it, which of course takes a back seat to the moral aspect.
Morally, if a person chooses freely and knowingly to commit homicide, then they have forfeited their right to life. There is much talk of pity for the guilty, but what about justice for the innocent?
- Status