Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[KindredSoul]

The governor of Texas has no power to stop an execution. that power is reserved for the board of pardons and paroles.

I was protesting in Huntsville the night Mr Willingham was executed-his guilt or innocent is irelevant to me as i oppose the death penalty in all circumstances/

I’m with you on that belief, for the most part. That is to say that I know and obediently concede that the Church allows for the Death Penalty, but I’m of the late Pope John Paul II’s opinion that it is almost never appropriate to employ it in our modern society with its extensive prisons and much more civil ways of protecting society from murderers. With him, I feel that the Death Penalty should only be used if it is the only means of self-defense for society at large, and I think those circumstances are rare.

It would take a most powerful murderer, with a savvy or escapist skill verging on omnipotence, of whom it was a foregone conclusion that he would almost certainly not be contained by the prison systems and who would almost certainly kill again once he inevitably broke free, before I would think the Death Penalty would be as necessary as the late Pope felt it should have to be before being employed.

In fact, if we stopped employing the Death Penalty except in such extreme, rare circumstances, the situation at hand now would never have existed, since I highly doubt that a man who might even plausibly be innocent is a clear and nigh-omnipotent threat to society on that extreme scale; by such appropriately strict standards, he would therefore never have been sentenced to death in the first place.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

There seem to be a few nonsensical posts here.

Again—have Scalia et al gleefully tossed off the quip, “We have no problem executing the innocent” or is ‘someone’ misinterpreting and/or misquoting?

Just as Aquinas and Augustine have no doubt been both.

Catholics are permitted to support the death penalty. The truth cannot be bent to suit an agenda.

 

[ChadS]

There seem to be a few nonsensical posts here.

Again—have Scalia et al gleefully tossed off the quip, “We have no problem executing the innocent” or is ‘someone’ misinterpreting and/or misquoting?

Just as Aquinas and Augustine have no doubt been both.

Catholics are permitted to support the death penalty. The truth cannot be bent to suit an agenda.

The Church does indeed allow for the death penalty. Saying that however is a long way from saying that the Church approves of the ways it is used and implemented in the United States. The two do not necessarily go together.

In the case of Scalia it is not a matter of a bunch of people misinterpreting what he said nor is it a case of a bunch of liberals getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

In a dissent authored by Scalia for both him and Justice Thomas he wrote:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

See page 2 of document: supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf

This blog article (writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090826.html) discusses the ruling in more detail.

What kind of world do we live in where the courts no longer believe it is their job to make sure the wrongly-convicted are not only released from prison but not executed? Have we all gone mad?

ChadS

 

[Secret_Square]

Regarding Thomas Aquinas and his understanding of Catholic teaching, which apparently included a belief that heretics deserved the death penalty: Yes, he is a Doctor of the Church and it is true that he probably had a better understanding of the Bible than most of us on this blog. That does not, however, mean his understanding was perfect, or that it could not be improved upon later. Nor does it mean that every single thing he said is necessarily accepted by the Church today.

I would say that Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers had a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution than most Americans do today – after all, they wrote it! As we all know, the Constitution as they originally wrote it allowed slavery, and Jefferson and other founders also owned slaves.

Now, would anyone cite this as an argument against living in the United States or becoming a citizen TODAY – completely ignoring the fact that those parts of the Constitution have since been amended, and that slavery no longer exists? That makes about as much sense as arguing against Christianity or the Catholic Church on the basis of what was believed and practiced 500+ years ago versus today.

It is true that the Old Testament laws commanding witches, homosexuals, adulterers, etc. to be put to death are still in the canon of Scripture, but they have obviously been superseded by the New Testament. Christ Himself disobeyed the law commanding the death penalty for adultery when he forgave the adulterous woman. St. Paul and other Apostles made it clear later that Christians were not to be bound by most of the Old Testament laws. The reason the Torah is still part of our Bible is because it is part of our heritage – it reminds us of where Christ and the Chosen People of God came from – but that doesn’t mean we still obey or believe 100 percent everything in it.

As for women being stoned to death in Afghanistan, that’s being done by Muslims, not Christians or Jews. Islam, by the way, is a much “younger” religion than Christianity or Judaism. The Muslim calendar starts in 622 A.D. with the flight of Mohammed from Mecca – they consider this the beginning of their faith as we date ours from the birth of Jesus. So in terms of theological development, maybe the Muslims’ understanding of the Quran is about 600 or so years behind Christians’ understanding of the Bible – which would put it at roughly the same level the Catholic Church was at in the Middle Ages. There are, of course, different sects and branches of Islam which do not interpret the Quran nearly as strictly as the Taliban or Al Qaeda do.

 

[Lapin_Lascif]

You said the Lord wants us to kill them. I just showed where it says He dissaproves of the death penalty. Your assertion is false.

Why, Timbo, I do declare; you are wibbling.

But, then again, with such a large and self-contradictory book at your disposal, you can quote yourself out of any corner you are backed into.
‘The devil can quote scripture…’ you know the rest
.
What an interesting and unpleasant character your Boss is; asking, excuse me, demanding,that we kill one another for imaginary crimes or for having fun with other adults.

It seems like a rather provincial attitude for the creator of the universe.

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that this book was written by a bunch of ignorant goatherds who could barely keep their own excrement out of their food.

He “fulfilled the law” and I believe that is why some Mosaic laws don’t apply anymore. I also showed the verse where He frowned on the death pnealty, which I presume includes when it’s used in Afghanistan.

It seems to me that the OT is now a profound liability for folks like you.
Well, buck up sonny, you are stuck with it.

And don’t give me any of this doctrine of grace nonsense.

No. The bible means what it says and it is the word of your master.

So next time you see a fellow who worships another god, go make your inquiries and when he indeed has committed this heinous crime, put him to the sword, kill him, kill his family, kill everyone in his town and burn it to the ground.

Would you like me to quote chapter and verse for this little nugget of celestial wisdom for you too, or do you think you can find it yourself ?

Just bite the bullet and say you worship a psychopathic tyrant and be done with it.

 

[Secret_Square]

"It seems to me that the OT is now a profound liability for folks like you.
Well, buck up sonny, you are stuck with it.

And don’t give me any of this doctrine of grace nonsense.

No. The bible means what it says and it is the word of your master."

To that I could respond:

It seems to me that the Constitution is now a profound liability for all Americans (since it allowed slavery). Well, buck up people, we are stuck with it.

And don’t give me any of this amendment or Bill of Rights nonsense.

The Constitution means what it says and it is the word of your founding fathers. (Therefore all true Americans must still believe in slavery).

 

[KindredSoul]

Why, Timbo, I do declare; you are wibbling.

But, then again, with such a large and self-contradictory book at your disposal, you can quote yourself out of any corner you are backed into.
‘The devil can quote scripture…’ you know the rest
.
What an interesting and unpleasant character your Boss is; asking, excuse me, demanding,that we kill one another for imaginary crimes or for having fun with other adults.

It seems like a rather provincial attitude for the creator of the universe.

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that this book was written by a bunch of ignorant goatherds who could barely keep their own excrement out of their food.

How conveniently selective of you, Lapin, to completely ignore any arguments in previous pages that address, at length, your claims that God wants Catholics to kill unbelievers and the like, so that you can continue to make the same false assertion upon which you evidently depend so heavily in insulting Christians. How very dishonest of you to continue talking about God’s supposed imperfections and cruelties as though viewing Him the way you view Him is an established fact that has somehow slipped the notice of billions who disagree, rather than being merely your opinion. You have had the very basis of your argument addressed, and you have dodged such address left and right and used the same basis without showing why it is even reasonable in the face of refutations that you have ignored altogether.

Just bite the bullet and say you worship a psychopathic tyrant and be done with it.

Does it bother you to admit that your statement, about something you don’t even believe in no less, is strictly your opinion? Are you so insecure in your lack of belief you feel the need to slander Christianity and God in order to feel as though you’ve made a good decision? Your desperate need to believe and “prove” that Christianity is an evil religion worshiping a psychopathic tyrant betrays your own insecurities. I have no need, none whatsoever, to make false caricatures, no matter how elaborately argued, about others’ religious beliefs or lack thereof in order to feel that my own beliefs are true. I believe in Catholicism on its own merits. The way that you, on the other hand, show such a single-minded unwillingness to admit that your accusations have already been dealt with properly suggests that you do not have any such security with your own stance. You will do whatever it takes to pat yourself on the back and assure yourself that you did a “good job” by being an atheist because Christians are very bad or deluded to the point of stupidity.

We should pray for you; even if you never come to see Catholicism as true, perhaps you can become simply a more honest person who sees that your clear anti-Catholic/anti-Christian/anti-religion bias is not the only way of reading the Bible or interpretting the character of God. You claim–or at least imply so heavily that it amounts to a claim–that anyone who reads the Bible and gets something different than you is either stupid or deliberately denying/distorting the “truth” (i.e. your opinion) that you have concluded. That is a deliberately closed minded assertion, and you are well aware of the dishonest manipulation that you are using in order to make your own conclusion seem both obvious and true when in fact there is no demonstrable reason to believe your conclusion is either obvious or true.

Please refrain from this behavior if your intentions are in fact honest.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Why, Timbo, I do declare; you are wibbling.

But, then again, with such a large and self-contradictory book at your disposal, you can quote yourself out of any corner you are backed into.
‘The devil can quote scripture…’ you know the rest

. You got to use proper context. Something you’re not using.

What an interesting and unpleasant character your Boss is;

Who needs all that “forgiveness” and “charity” anyway?

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that this book was written by a bunch of ignorant goatherds who could barely keep their own excrement out of their food.

Well you might want to research it then.

Furthermore, before you challenge it’s validity, you got to consider the people who actually would know. The apostles saw the Lord rise from the dead and many were willing to be persecuted by the Romans rather than renounce that belief. So if it’s so unreliable, what actually happened, that could inspire such faith in so many eyewitnesses?

Well, buck up sonny, you are stuck with it.

And don’t give me any of this doctrine of grace nonsense.

No. The bible means what it says and it is the word of your master.

I agree, now let’s quote it.

John 8: 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,

4they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.

5"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"

6They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.

7But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

8Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.

10Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”

11She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either Go From now on sin no more.”]

So next time you see a fellow who worships another god, go make your inquiries and when he indeed has committed this heinous crime, put him to the sword, kill him, kill his family, kill everyone in his town and burn it to the ground.

Or I could just follow that bible verse I just posted.

It seems to me that the OT is now a profound liability for folks like you.

Not as much a liability as the NT, or proper context, are for you.

Just bite the bullet and say you worship a psychopathic tyrant and be done with it.

The same guy who sent His son to die for me and offers us a chance at eternal life, who’s willing to forgive pretty much anything? Doesn’t sound like a pycopathic tyrant to me.

 

[Ender]

There simply are no truly good arguments for defying God’s Law. If it’s okay for a Catholic to defy it for any reason, it is not being treated as God’s Law but as a mere private moral compass.

I agree with your statement here, what I disagree with is that this describes the situation of judges having to rule on cases where the law is both clear and clearly immoral.

Although the Church has condemned politicians who support abortion she has also said that a politician may support a law that, while not eliminating abortion, at least lessens its impact. I am not aware of any statement even suggesting that judges have a moral obligation to ignore immoral laws even though she has said that we citizens are not bound by such laws. There is a real distinction between what is appropriate for an individual and what is appropriate for a minister of the state.

I have found nothing definitive either way, although I did find this:

*On the contrary, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi): “In these earthly laws, though men judge about them when they are making them,when once they are established and passed, the judges may judge no longer of them, but according to them.” *(Aquinas ST I/II 60,5)

I would have been comfortable that this made my point if he hadn’t followed up with this:

Wherefore such documents are to be called, not laws, but rather corruptions of law, as stated above (I-II, 95, 2): and consequently judgment should not be delivered according to them. (ST I/II 60, 5 ad 1)

So, I’m still searching.

Ender

 

[Ender]

In a dissent authored by Scalia for both him and Justice Thomas he wrote: * This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted de-fendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.*

What kind of world do we live in where the courts no longer believe it is their job to make sure the wrongly-convicted are not only released from prison but not executed? Have we all gone mad?

Let’s assume for the moment that Scalia’s comment is correct in his understanding of the Constitution; that is, there is no law that allows an additional appeal in such a situation: what should Scalia do? Invent such a law? I understand the significance of the situation for the convicted felon, I just disagree with your solution which at bottom is: judges may ignore laws they think lead to unjust results and rule based on their personal opinions. I wonder how you would feel if all judges acted this way. Say, for example, a panel of judges decided out of the blue that a state’s constitution legalized gay marriages … wait, that’s already happening. How does this approach seem when you’re on the wrong side of judges ruling based on their personal opinions irrespective of the law?

Ender

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I utterly oppose the death penalty when carried out on the innocent unborn.

 

[KindredSoul]

I utterly oppose the death penalty when carried out on the innocent unborn.

Well, anybody who opposes the death penalty when carried out on the possibly/plausibly innocent should definitely (if they are being consistent) oppose it if it is carried out on the definitely innocent–which would include the unborn most surely of all. So to your comment, I for one can only say: Amen!

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[Ender]

So much is that my sole argument, in fact, that if it can be clearly demonstrated to me that the Justices’ decision is not a case of putting Catholic Morality on the back burner for the “greater good,” or otherwise separating their morality from their governmental profession (a ludicrous practice in itself that is a rotten fruit of secular democracy, one that suggests that you can turn your morality off if your job says you must) then I will have no further argument.

One of the things I have not turned up in my search for a Catholic statement on this problem is … a Catholic statement. That is, although there is a very clear statement on the obligations of legislators, there is nothing at all for jurists and that in itself is significant because if the Church doesn’t claim that judges have a moral obligation to ignore national laws that conflicts with natural law then it seems a bit presumptuous of us to demand it.

Here is a statement that presents my perspective. It is from a paper by Gregory S. Kalscheur S.J., Boston College Law School, titled Catholics in Public Life: Judges, Legislators, and Voters
lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=bc_lsfp

“Compassion cannot be the compass of a federal judge. That compass is the Constitution of the United States.” Similarly, while a judge appropriately brings his or her convictions regarding justice and morality to the work of deciding cases, Catholic moral doctrine cannot displace the Constitution and laws of the United States as the legal compass guiding the judge faced with the task of deciding what a particular provision of the law means in the context of a specific case.

Interestingly, a very different approach may be applicable in certain cases; the example in the article is of a Catholic judge presiding over a minor’s request for an abortion without parental consent. Several Catholic judges have recused themselves from all such cases. The difference between the two situations may seem negligible but I think they are significant and justify the different responses.

Ender

 

[BobObob]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.'”**

In summary, we need not be opposed to the death penalty per se, but the death penalty, in the case of the United States, is usually not acceptable.

 

[Sunflower15]

I restate this one, which somehow has not been answered.
How exactly do we ‘execute an innocent person without the intent to harm the innocent’?

Note: The point is whether it is the same to execute an adult who is innocent of a crime as to abort the unborn - morally and ethically speaking.

 

[Sunflower15]

Before you consign me to hell, which you seem remarkably anxious to do,
Did I even mention the word ‘HELL’? I certainly am not anxious to send anyone there. However, the advocates of the Death Penalty are!
:sad_yes:

think through again what the proposition is. Your proposition assumes, without proving it, that the various states and federal system knowingly execute innocent people, known by them to be innocent. You then go on to compare that with abortion.

As the one proposing the comparison, you must first demonstrate the initial premise; that the state and federal criminal systems knowingly execute innocent people. You haven’t done that.

Did you not read how 2 Catholic Supreme Court Justices insist that it is permissible to execute someone who may be innocent of the crime as long as they had a ‘fair’ trial? What else do you want?

Just so you know, I do not favor capital punishment. But whether or not a Catholic supports it or not is within the prudential judgment of the individual. The Church does not say it is an intrinsic evil as it says abortion is. Now, if you can prove that the state and federal systems knowingly execute innocent people, you might have an argument that the Church should change its mind about it.

The Church DOES say it is intrinsically evil to kill an innocent…regardless of whether a particular government may have convicted that innocent person or not…

 

[Sunflower15]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.'”

In summary, we need not be opposed to the death penalty per se, but the death penalty, in the case of the United States, is usually not acceptable.

That is precisely the way I understand it, that the Death Penalty might be permissible [to deter further aggression] in some specific instances somewhere else, but NOT in ANY instance while in the US due to the availability of life imprisonment without parole. And, that is in terms of those actually guilty. In the case of those who may be believed to be innocent of the crimes they were accused of, there is NO allowance for execution of innocent people.

My main concern is that Death Penalty advocates speak of advocating a ‘penalty’ as if removed from terminating lives. In other words, as if they speak of an impersonal political platform rather than an actual death sentence to a real person!

 

[Ender]

The Church DOES say it is intrinsically evil to kill an innocent…regardless of whether a particular government may have convicted that innocent person or not…

Not exactly. What the Church has said is that it is evil to intentionally kill an innocent person, otherwise such things as fatal auto accidents would be examples of intrinsically evil acts. It would be a tragic occurrence if an innocent man was executed but even that is not intrinsically evil as long as the trial was fair and the judgment of the jury was unbiased (according to both Augustine and Aquinas).

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas, ST I/II 60)

Ender

 

[Ender]

My main concern is that Death Penalty advocates speak of advocating a ‘penalty’ as if removed from terminating lives. In other words, as if they speak of an impersonal political platform rather than an actual death sentence to a real person!

Just punishment is not a political issue. The reason I support the death penalty is because I believe, based on what the Church has taught throughout history, the obligation of justice requires it. The restrictions placed on executions by 2267 are prudential, based on the belief that in current society they cause more harm than good; they are not moral judgments on the justness of such sentences.

Ender

 

[Sunflower15]

Not exactly. What the Church has said is that it is evil to intentionally kill an innocent person, otherwise such things as fatal auto accidents would be examples of intrinsically evil acts. It would be a tragic occurrence if an innocent man was executed but even that is not intrinsically evil as long as the trial was fair and the judgment of the jury was unbiased (according to both Augustine and Aquinas).

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas, ST I/II 60)

Ender

An auto accident is not killing, in the sense of executing. It is an accident and not part of our discussion here.

Where did Aquinas or Augustine mention anything about executions after having a fair trial? I haven’t come across that. Please, provide a reference.

However, that is a terrible interpretation of what both Aquinas or Augustine meant. Their point would be that if you accidentally cause someone harm while meaning to do some good, then it is not an evil act in itself. I am not arguing that!

On the contrary, to kill -not by accident- but with premeditation and full knowledge that the person may be innocent of the crime for which he is being executed, that is an entirely different proposition. And, it is forbidden in the Catechism and in the Bible, as well, not to mention in the 10 commandments.
**
How can you feel it is fair to kill someone for a crime he did not commit? Even aside from religion, it makes no sense in the light of natural law.**