Imprisonment for Life? A Viable Option?

[Veritas248]

This is my quandary: there is never any good in death. In the death of an evil man or woman, there can be the prevention of evil, but not good. Is this prevention of evil a good thing or simply a return to “balance”, so-to-speak? Kind of a classic example of two wrongs not making a right. If a man is a murderer, does killing him bring back those he killed?

I suppose I need to put this in perspective… I had a horrific experience as a child with my father. He was one of these men that you say should be put to death. He was a drunk, an addict, and a child molester. And yet even I, the victim, cannot support death in this.

Believe me when I say that I understand how very tempting it is to say that justice must be served with death. That we need to kill these people to give his victims or their families peace. But the death of these evil people cannot relieve or repair what they have done. All it serves is to simultaneously salve and justify the anger and hatred that comes from these horrible actions. I feel as the Catechism seems to say that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.””. Death only serves as the ultimate removal from society, not as punishment. When life sentence prisoners are petitioning to have their sentence commuted to death, which do you think is a more effective punishment? Why should we not do as IrishYanksFan says and have forced labor camps for life? That seems to me to be an acceptable recourse to death. We must, however, change the legal system to not allow for parole in the case of life sentences except when new evidence arises that can prove innocence.

Geoff

I see where you are coming from(had that position not too long ago myself), but it isn’t as simple as that. This isn’t as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Well, you got me all wrong, I don’t think tour father should be put to death. There are only a handful of people that would qualify for the death penalty in my eyes. Only after very, very, heinous crimes, i.e, more than several murders, only after a fair trial, and only if the criminal can be shown to have no chance of reforming. There are people who are just, well, evil. Those who will do whatever it takes to get out of prison, including kill anyone in their way. They won’t stay incarcerated. So they only way to protect society is, well, execute them. Double effect can be used, but not abused. I can see instances, albeit very few, that the death penalty is justified. Otherwise, life in prison. This isn’t an easy decision, but when I was against the death penalty, my conscience bothered me. So, I reformed my opinion, but not without careful thought.

 

[sisyphean]

I see where you are coming from(had that position not too long ago myself), but it isn’t as simple as that. This isn’t as cut and dry as you are making it out to be. Well, you got me all wrong, I don’t think tour father should be put to death. There are only a handful of people that would qualify for the death penalty in my eyes. Only after very, very, heinous crimes, i.e, more than several murders, only after a fair trial, and only if the criminal can be shown to have no chance of reforming. There are people who are just, well, evil. Those who will do whatever it takes to get out of prison, including kill anyone in their way. They won’t stay incarcerated. So they only way to protect society is, well, execute them. Double effect can be used, but not abused. I can see instances, albeit very few, that the death penalty is justified. Otherwise, life in prison. This isn’t an easy decision, but when I was against the death penalty, my conscience bothered me. So, I reformed my opinion, but not without careful thought.

I think we agree. Thanks for helping me clarify my own standpoint even if I have trouble explaining it.

Geoff

 

[Veritas248]

No problem.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

This is my quandary: there is never any good in death. In the death of an evil man or woman, there can be the prevention of evil, but not good. Is this prevention of evil a good thing or simply a return to “balance”, so-to-speak? Kind of a classic example of two wrongs not making a right. If a man is a murderer, does killing him bring back those he killed?

I suppose I need to put this in perspective… I had a horrific experience as a child with my father. He was one of these men that you say should be put to death. He was a drunk, an addict, and a child molester. And yet even I, the victim, cannot support death in this.

Believe me when I say that I understand how very tempting it is to say that justice must be served with death. That we need to kill these people to give his victims or their families peace. But the death of these evil people cannot relieve or repair what they have done. All it serves is to simultaneously salve and justify the anger and hatred that comes from these horrible actions. I feel as the Catechism seems to say that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.””. Death only serves as the ultimate removal from society, not as punishment. When life sentence prisoners are petitioning to have their sentence commuted to death, which do you think is a more effective punishment? Why should we not do as IrishYanksFan says and have forced labor camps for life? That seems to me to be an acceptable recourse to death. We must, however, change the legal system to not allow for parole in the case of life sentences except when new evidence arises that can prove innocence.

Geoff

Understand your points, but couldn’t disagree more strongly. Killing the criminals from earlier scenarios will not bring victims back, and may or may not bring them peace, but it will refrain from adding insult to injury. Not to offer death for death is a metaphysical insult of the first water, not unlike desecration of the victim’s body or grave. It is a studied response by society that the criminal’s life is more important than anything that occurred to his victims: an offence against the good that cries out to heaven, and overweighs any philosophical lack of good to be found in killing. For this reason, as I have said, NOT executing a criminal for offences such as homicide must only be considered for truly extraordinary mitigating circumstances.

 

[pnewton]

This is my quandary: there is never any good in death. In the death of an evil man or woman, there can be the prevention of evil, but not good. Is this prevention of evil a good thing or simply a return to “balance”, so-to-speak?

Consider this carried over to another scenario. An armed intruder breaks into one’s home and is s threat to the lives of one’s wife and children. Do you think there would be no good in killing such a one who is evil to save the life of one’s family who is innocent?

 

[sisyphean]

Consider this carried over to another scenario. An armed intruder breaks into one’s home and is s threat to the lives of one’s wife and children. Do you think there would be no good in killing such a one who is evil to save the life of one’s family who is innocent?

No good, but less evil will be done.

 

[Veritas248]

Consider this carried over to another scenario. An armed intruder breaks into one’s home and is s threat to the lives of one’s wife and children. Do you think there would be no good in killing such a one who is evil to save the life of one’s family who is innocent?

This is an excellent scenario to employ the principle of double effect.

 

[pnewton]

This is an excellent scenario to employ the principle of double effect.

It is one that parallels Catholic teaching on the death penalty. It can only be used when it is the only way to protect society. The debate is usually whether these cases are rare or non-existent.

 

[IrishYanksFan]

I don’t think if anybody’s mentioned this before, but what if somebody, who committed a capital crime, is former SAS or Delta Force or something and a talented escape artist? Would executing somebody on that basis be acceptable providing the crime he committed was grave enough?

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think if anybody’s mentioned this before, but what if somebody, who committed a capital crime, is former SAS or Delta Force or something and a talented escape artist? Would executing somebody on that basis be acceptable providing the crime he committed was grave enough?

At that point, it becomes an issue of if other means to preserve society exist.

I am opposed to the death penulty as it exists in the US, but this case you present would be an issue.

Literally, it is possible that such a man would need to be in 100% isolation. When he is not, he would need to be shackled in such as way as to prevent him from using any part of his body as a weapon. That would mean literally hog-tieing him. So, how well would that work? not very. The Civil Liberties people would be up in arms. And that does not even touch keeping im IN prison