Imprisonment for Life? A Viable Option?

[LilyM]

Interesting. You contend, then, that the murderer’s age or mental capacity makes his victims less dead somehow?

An entirely accidental shooting doesn’t make the victim less dead either, however the shooter’s culpability is considered greatly lessened if not nonexistent by reason of the shooting being accidental - and for that reason the shooter in such a situation would not be put to death.

Youth and mental incapacity have long been acknowledged by the legal system to similarly lessen if not extinguish culpability. As with the accidental shooter, this lessened culpability makes them unsuitable candidates for execution.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

An entirely accidental shooting doesn’t make the victim less dead either, however the shooter’s culpability is considered greatly lessened if not nonexistent by reason of the shooting being accidental - and for that reason the shooter in such a situation would not be put to death.

Youth and mental incapacity have long been acknowledged by the legal system to similarly lessen if not extinguish culpability. As with the accidental shooter, this lessened culpability makes them unsuitable candidates for execution.

Fair enough, though what various legal systems have asserted about the subject doesn’t necessarily offer helpful clues to moral truth. To the extent your argument resonates, I’d also change “unsuitable” to “less suitable”–I’ve always thought it should require truly extraordinary extenuating circumstances not to execute the perpetrator of homicide, and any diminished culpability had better be profoundly diminished. Although he makes no appearance in your scenario, there is a shootee to go along with your shooter.

 

[ralphinal]

Where is the line?

At what point is a life forefit?

In some places, killing a man is not capitol murder. Killing him and taking his wallet is. Is his life not ended either way?

What crimes should warrent death in your opinion?

 

[Dori1]

In the case of someone who kills in prison, they can be sentenced to solitary confinement. No need to kill.

Actually, solitary confinement is a misnomer. The law doesn’t allow completely solitary confinement. Even the worst of the worst; the most violent; those who kill with abandon and contract murders outside of prison from within the wall (I work in a maximum security prison, please don’t be fooled in to thinking this doesn’t happen) must be treated with respect and dignity. They can be confined in Secure Housing Units (SHU) where they are allowed 1 hour out of 24 outside of their cells in walk alone yards. These yards are generally adjacent to other “walk alones” so talk occurs and messaging happens. If they are determined to kill, nothing we do in prison will prevent that.

My staff and I sometimes spend whole days repairing the extremely violent stabbings that these people perpetrate on one another. They can create penetrating weapons from almost anything, and do. My husband tells me I “may not be able to change where they spend the rest of their lives, but * may help one of them to change where he spends his eternity.” Sometimes it gets discouraging.

THe point is, though, once a new prisoner hits the door of a max prison, they are in boot camp for hardened criminals. Very rarely is someone able to “quietly do their time.” The prison gangs don’t allow it. Rehab is not likely until the theory behind corrections and rehab is changed. The evidence demonstrates that the only rehabilitation programs with significantly reduced recidivism are faith based programs. This is not likely to occur, especially under the current administration.

Oops, sorry…I got a little preachy. I just try, with those I contact daily, to make a difference and don’t see that they really want a difference made. The point was, solitary confinement doesn’t really exist, whatever they call it…it would be considered a violation of the prisoner’s 8th amendment rights. In addition, even if it did exist, it wouldn’t keep the prisoner from perpetrating crimes against others. They can simply direct someone lower on the food chain to do it for them; and it will happen.*

 

[Alexius]

Innocent? Don’t know. Juveniles and people with severely low IQs - who should NEVER be subjected to capital punishment - absolutely.

Most states in US operate on these ideas. Many; however, will give life sentences to minors. My state will charge any minor who committed intentional homicide as adult (regardless of how young they are). If found guilty, they will be given life without parole (that’s the only sentence possible for murder by a minor). There have been many elderly inmates executed as well; not without controversy. On January 17, 2006, Clarence Ray Allen was executed. This happened only one day after his 76th birthday. He was already in prison on a life-term for murder when he paid another inmate to murder three witnesses against him. He had been on death row since 1982. He had diabetes, was blind, deaf and confined to a wheelchair. Gov. Schwarzenegger refused to grant clemency and the Supreme Court refused to hear a last-minute appeal. The oldest man ever executed was John B. Nixon, who was age 77. The oldest man currently on death row, Leroy Nash, will be 94 years old this September.

Actually, solitary confinement is a misnomer. The law doesn’t allow completely solitary confinement. Even the worst of the worst; the most violent; those who kill with abandon and contract murders outside of prison from within the wall (I work in a maximum security prison, please don’t be fooled in to thinking this doesn’t happen) must be treated with respect and dignity. They can be confined in Secure Housing Units (SHU) where they are allowed 1 hour out of 24 outside of their cells in walk alone yards. These yards are generally adjacent to other “walk alones” so talk occurs and messaging happens. If they are determined to kill, nothing we do in prison will prevent that.

My staff and I sometimes spend whole days repairing the extremely violent stabbings that these people perpetrate on one another. They can create penetrating weapons from almost anything, and do. My husband tells me I “may not be able to change where they spend the rest of their lives, but * may help one of them to change where he spends his eternity.” Sometimes it gets discouraging.

THe point is, though, once a new prisoner hits the door of a max prison, they are in boot camp for hardened criminals. Very rarely is someone able to “quietly do their time.” The prison gangs don’t allow it. Rehab is not likely until the theory behind corrections and rehab is changed. The evidence demonstrates that the only rehabilitation programs with significantly reduced recidivism are faith based programs. This is not likely to occur, especially under the current administration.

Oops, sorry…I got a little preachy. I just try, with those I contact daily, to make a difference and don’t see that they really want a difference made. The point was, solitary confinement doesn’t really exist, whatever they call it…it would be considered a violation of the prisoner’s 8th amendment rights. In addition, even if it did exist, it wouldn’t keep the prisoner from perpetrating crimes against others. They can simply direct someone lower on the food chain to do it for them; and it will happen.*

It is good to have someone else confirm what I have been told about these SHU units. The local state prison has these and they house most of the death row inmates and well as the highest risk offenders. Anyone can pretty much get out of them and go to maximum by good behavior except for the death row inmates–they are stuck in solitary confinement. Of course, the Feds have the notorious Supermax at FCI Florence (in Colorado) among others. I don’t plan on ever being on the other side of those bars…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Veritas248]

I am for the death penalty. I believe that sometimes, in order to ensure justice, people must be executed. I think life imprisonment is also acceptable for criminals that can be rehabilitated. If the criminal kills an innocent in prison, then they should be executed. They had their chance to reform and they blew it. Age and IQ should be a lessening factor, but even that can be taken to far.

What I don’t understand is that whenever people argue about the death penalty( or sometimes, against life imprisonment), they are always focused on the criminals. Little to no consideration is given to the victims or their families. **Do you want to be the one to explain to a murdered person’s family that they will be denied justice because the state doesn’t have the right to execute or permanently incarcerate criminals? **They broke the law, they should be punished for what they have done. Within proportion, preferably, i.e. taking into account all factors, the crime itself, and any lessening factors. I can understand why people would be uncomfortable with the death penalty, but the fact is that they broke the law. Why should these criminals get a lesser punishment for a crime while the victim and their family be denied justice?
For these reasons, I believe both the death penalty and life imprisonment are viable punishments for criminals who have broken the law.

 

[sisyphean]

Matthew 5:38-48

38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.

41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, 42 Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. 43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

kind of an unwieldy translation (Douay-Rheims) but you get the point.

 

[sisyphean]

Killing is never justice. An eye for an eye is faulty, hows that go, “In a world of an eye for an eye all men are blind” or something like that?

I hear lots of people trying valiantly to justify the death penalty: It is justice, they deserve it, we cant get rid of them otherwise, its too expensive to keep them alive, etc. etc. etc.

These are very acceptable arguments for a very strong standpoint. A standpoint that I held for many years and to a certain extent feels right. However, they fail to take into account that we are called to forgive those who wrong us. My issue here, my conundrum, is that God is also just and as such we all have serve punishment for our actions (forgiving does not mean forgetting) . So where is the line? At what point do we say it is acceptable to kill someone? Right now it is what we would term “heinous” crimes. But like abortion, pornography, or a hundred other moral ills, the line of what we call heinous will continue to be stretched and moved. What about when grand theft is seen as a “heinous” crime? should we put them to death as well?

These are not arguments that hold water, but I am failing to make my point clear right now so I hope that they make do.

Geoff

P.S. I do believe the state should have the right to PERMANENTLY incarcerate people.

 

[sisyphean]

This is what the CCC has to say (and I know this is the Non-Catholic forum but no other christian denomination or religion that I know of has a book like the Catechism):

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

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.”

See also Luke 23:40-43

 

[pnewton]

Killing is never justice. An eye for an eye is faulty, hows that go, “In a world of an eye for an eye all men are blind” or something like that?.

Never? Then your argument will need to be with God, as it is the part of the law he gave Moses. But you really consider that God is unjust? Then why quote Him?

 

[sisyphean]

Never? Then your argument will need to be with God, as it is the part of the law he gave Moses. But you really consider that God is unjust? Then why quote Him?

Never was an overstatement and I actually say that God IS just.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[pnewton]

Never was an overstatement and I actually say that God IS just.

Sorry for any confusion.

Understood. Are you saying then it is never justice now (or seldom)? I ask because that would be reflective of the Catechism. I believe the idea of “rare” is a little broader than the late John Paul II, but still agree that it is more narrow than practiced. It is one of the few areas I think I have a better understanding than most theologians of the Church on, as it is more of a technical opinion than moral one.

 

[Veritas248]

If the eyes of God, yes. It is our duty to forgive people because we are all guilty of breaking the law of God. We are not all guilty of breaking the laws of man. That has to be distinguished. If we don’t have these laws, we will have anarchy. In order to ensure a stable society, there needs to be punishment. You have to look at all sides. In an ideal society, all would follow the commands of God, but we don’t live in an ideal society. Even so, Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek refers to individuals, not the sate. Since we live in a pluralistic society, the state has to accommodate all forms of belief to satisfy as many as possible. You are not advocating a Theocracy where all are forced to forgive, are you? There are limits to this accommodation, insofar as innocent lives need to be protected. No abortion or euthanasia. The key word there is innocent. There can be no justification for taking innocent life. There is justification for taking guilty life, under the principle of Double effect. If the good that is to be performed, i.e., ensuring justice, protecting society, etc., outweighs the evil, i.e., taking the life of a guilty person, than the death penalty is justified. Which is why, despite Jesus’ commands, I see no problem with the death penalty. It has to be administered with caution, however, we seek Justice, not Wrath. If it can be proven that the person is innocent or has lessened culpability, the death penalty is not justified.
I don’t have a strong opinion, I’d rather the death penalty never used. I do think my position is reasonable given the situation we are in.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Innocent? Don’t know. Juveniles and people with severely low IQs - who should NEVER be subjected to capital punishment - absolutely.

Many years back there was an espionage case here in Los Angeles which came out in a book The Falcon and the Snowman. The Snowman was a drug dealer in his late teens or early twenties. When he came up for sentencing he requested special consideration as a young offender, which is an option under federal law. He explained that he wanted to turn his life around and benefit society.

I fact he was already on three suspended sentences. One so he could go back to school, one so he could get a job and reform himself, and I forget why he had the other.

The judge gave the prosecution fits when he sympathized with the defendant and agreed that it would be good if he benefited society and atoned for his crimes. The judge suggested he do it by serving as a horrible example - life in prison. A couple of years later he faced a more severe court a received the death penalty when he offended his fellow prisoners.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Matthew 5:38-48

38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him.

41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, 42 Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. 43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

kind of an unwieldy translation (Douay-Rheims) but you get the point.

That might work for somewhere under occupation (hence v.41) and small & not an urban society 2000 years ago - but for the urban & complex societies of the West, it’s a non-starter. Jesus did not have to reckon with paedophiles, forgers, traitors, & similar scum; so a good deal of what he said is simply out of date. His ideas are a recipe for chaos. I’d like see him forgive murderers of his relatives - if his life had been ruined in the way some people’s have, he’d have have changed his tune quick enough. Oh, and most dead people stay dead - their relations, however terrible the pain of losing them, have to get on without them. Any moral scheme that does not allow for revenge & punishment for particularly heinous & destructive crimes is of no use to society. “Vengeance is mine”, is all very well - but God is not in danger of being gang-raped, or of being kidnapped, tortured, & murdered. These things happen on earth - therefore, there must be adequate punishments for them.​

 

[Veritas248]

That might work for somewhere under occupation (hence v.41) and small & not an urban society 2000 years ago - but for the urban & complex societies of the West, it’s a non-starter. Jesus did not have to reckon with paedophiles, forgers, traitors, & similar scum; so a good deal of what he said is simply out of date. His ideas are a recipe for chaos. I’d like see him forgive murderers of his relatives - if his life had been ruined in the way some people’s have, he’d have have changed his tune quick enough. Oh, and most dead people stay dead - their relations, however terrible the pain of losing them, have to get on without them. Any moral scheme that does not allow for revenge & punishment for particularly heinous & destructive crimes is of no use to society. “Vengeance is mine”, is all very well - but God is not in danger of being gang-raped, or of being kidnapped, tortured, & murdered. These things happen on earth - therefore, there must be adequate punishments for them.​

Jesus forgave those who crucified Him, I’m sure He would have no problem forgiving people who murdered his relatives. No, what He said is not “out of date”, it simply reflects what one should do, i.e. the ideal behavior. It also refers to individuals. Besides, Jesus was speaking about God’s law, not the laws of man. We have all transgressed God’s law, but most of us are not guilty of breaking the laws of man. Very important distinction. I kind of agree with the rest, but I would not put it in such harsh terms. Justice, not Wrath…

 

[Dori1]

That might work for somewhere under occupation (hence v.41) and small & not an urban society 2000 years ago - but for the urban & complex societies of the West, it’s a non-starter. Jesus did not have to reckon with paedophiles, forgers, traitors, & similar scum; so a good deal of what he said is simply out of date. His ideas are a recipe for chaos. I’d like see him forgive murderers of his relatives - if his life had been ruined in the way some people’s have, he’d have have changed his tune quick enough. Oh, and most dead people stay dead - their relations, however terrible the pain of losing them, have to get on without them. Any moral scheme that does not allow for revenge & punishment for particularly heinous & destructive crimes is of no use to society. “Vengeance is mine”, is all very well - but God is not in danger of being gang-raped, or of being kidnapped, tortured, & murdered. These things happen on earth - therefore, there must be adequate punishments for them.​

Actually, the crimes you note are not unique to the modern era. History demonstrates that there have been pedophiles, rapists, murderers and traitors, as well as many other heinous criminals throughout the existence of man. They existed long before Jesus, during His time and have ever since. His words were appropriate for all time.

 

[IrishYanksFan]

I do believe that in most cases it is immoral to kill someone who, no matter what his sins are, can be effectively controlled. Remember, “He who is without sin cast the first stone?”

I do concede however that “life in prison” more times than not does not really mean life in prison. As an alternative to the death penalty, we should build Stalinist-style gulags with barely edible food and arbitrary beatings and use them as slave labor, so in a way they actually pay for the cost of keeping them there.

 

[Alexius]

Many years back there was an espionage case here in Los Angeles which came out in a book The Falcon and the Snowman. The Snowman was a drug dealer in his late teens or early twenties. When he came up for sentencing he requested special consideration as a young offender, which is an option under federal law. He explained that he wanted to turn his life around and benefit society.

I fact he was already on three suspended sentences. One so he could go back to school, one so he could get a job and reform himself, and I forget why he had the other.

The judge gave the prosecution fits when he sympathized with the defendant and agreed that it would be good if he benefited society and atoned for his crimes. The judge suggested he do it by serving as a horrible example - life in prison. A couple of years later he faced a more severe court a received the death penalty when he offended his fellow prisoners.

He’s been out of prison since 1998. His partner was given 40 years, but he was released in 2002 and has since married. He will be on parole for the next 36 years because of an escape and subsequent flight during which he robbed 17 banks.

I do believe that in most cases it is immoral to kill someone who, no matter what his sins are, can be effectively controlled. Remember, “He who is without sin cast the first stone?”

I do concede however that “life in prison” more times than not does not really mean life in prison. As an alternative to the death penalty, we should build Stalinist-style gulags with barely edible food and arbitrary beatings and use them as slave labor, so in a way they actually pay for the cost of keeping them there.

More like labor camps–used to have more of these in the US, but even those were palaces compared to their Siberian counterparts.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[sisyphean]

If the eyes of God, yes. It is our duty to forgive people because we are all guilty of breaking the law of God. We are not all guilty of breaking the laws of man. That has to be distinguished. If we don’t have these laws, we will have anarchy. In order to ensure a stable society, there needs to be punishment. You have to look at all sides. In an ideal society, all would follow the commands of God, but we don’t live in an ideal society. Even so, Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek refers to individuals, not the sate. Since we live in a pluralistic society, the state has to accommodate all forms of belief to satisfy as many as possible. You are not advocating a Theocracy where all are forced to forgive, are you? There are limits to this accommodation, insofar as innocent lives need to be protected. No abortion or euthanasia. The key word there is innocent. There can be no justification for taking innocent life. There is justification for taking guilty life, under the principle of Double effect. If the good that is to be performed, i.e., ensuring justice, protecting society, etc., outweighs the evil, i.e., taking the life of a guilty person, than the death penalty is justified. Which is why, despite Jesus’ commands, I see no problem with the death penalty. It has to be administered with caution, however, we seek Justice, not Wrath. If it can be proven that the person is innocent or has lessened culpability, the death penalty is not justified.
I don’t have a strong opinion, I’d rather the death penalty never used. I do think my position is reasonable given the situation we are in.

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