Is executing 'innocent' Death Row inmates acceptable?

[Ender]

I rest my case…it is forbidden by God to take the life of an innocent man - to be considered a direct affront to the Lord Himself! WOW!

It is forbidden to **deliberately **take the life of an innocent man; this distinction is crucial and you keep leaving it out.

We may infer that if someone kills a murderer, such as Cain, that the murderer will be avenged ‘sevenfold’…into those who killed him…according to the Lord Himself in Genesis…

Is this not ‘binding’ to Catholics? or not ‘traditional’ enough teaching?

No, your inference is not binding. The Church has never interpreted the story of Cain as you do. She has and does - as I documented - interpret Gen 5-6 as it is written.

Now…this thread is NOT about those guilty of crimes, but about those mistakenly convicted of crimes and innocent!

Even in this situation - which does not describe the situation the OP presented - there is no sin if the intent was just but the result was wrong.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I am trying to understand WHO exactly is this ‘other’ Church that you are talking about…I just don’t understand…I must be missing something.

On one side you have JPII’s statement in Evangelium Vitae that led directly to section 2267 of the current Catechism. On the other side you have statements from the following:

Innocent I … Innocent III … Gregory IX … Leo XIII … Pius X … Pius XII … Paul VI
The Catechisms of Trent … Baltimore … Pius X … CCC
The writings of Augustine … Aquinas
The comments of Dulles … Ratzinger … the USCCB

These are just the (Church) sources I have found who made comments specifically on capital punishment. The list is even longer when you factor in other associated issues like punishment, mercy, retribution, expiation, justice, etc.

This is only about ‘executing INNOCENT death row inmates’ and whether it should be acceptable to Catholics

I was unaware that anyone was arguing that it should be acceptable to execute the innocent. I doubt that you can find anyone in this thread making that statement and there is certainly no way to conclude from his ruling that this was Scalia’s position.

The reason, it is not a constitutional mandate that the person executed be 'actually innocent

.’ All other 7 Justices disagree.So, then it is your position that Scalia misinterpreted the Constitution? Is that what you’re exercised about?

Ender

 

[Sunflower15]

It is forbidden to **deliberately **take the life of an innocent man; this distinction is crucial and you keep leaving it out.

I see now what you mean…I guess to me, to deliberately ignore to hear evidence that proves innocence [or casts doubt on guilt] is deliberately executing an innocent person. Of course, if one unknowingly killed, then one cannot have sinned…sin requires knowledge.

No, your inference is not binding. The Church has never interpreted the story of Cain as you do. She has and does - as I documented - interpret Gen 5-6 as it is written.

I have NO idea WHO exactly ‘this Church’ that you talk about is…but it seems to pick and choose passages to interpret one way or another…almost in Protestant Reformed fashion…

However, I wonder what about Gen 5-6 you refer to. Is it the Flood? By all means, GOD can and DOES punish at WILL…but NOT US! He does not seem to require our help.

Even in this situation - which does not describe the situation the OP presented - there is no sin if the intent was just but the result was wrong.
Yes, it does. I’m the OP and that is the point precisely I was making.

How is the ‘intent’ NOT wrong? To even believe there is a shadow of a doubt about the innocence of someone about to be executed, and to deny a hearing to check it out - How would you rate that ‘intent’?

To coldly write about the possibility that we may after the fact find that he was ‘actually innocent’ but that still it is not unconstitutional… and to coldly write this before the fact as if it has already happened that we are finding his innocence after all!

It makes my stomach turn!

I won’t even mention that these 2 Justices are always offered as examples of Pro Life…

Ender

 

[Ender]

Sunflower15:

I have NO idea WHO exactly ‘this Church’ that you talk about is…but it seems to pick and choose passages to interpret one way or another…almost in Protestant Reformed fashion…

I cannot understand your confusion. I am quoting previous popes and Catechisms; do they not constitute the Church? If you believe your interpretation of the story of Cain is correct then I challenge you to find some documentation to support your position. What pope or doctor of the Church gives that interpretation?

However, I wonder what about Gen 5-6 you refer to. Is it the Flood? By all means, GOD can and DOES punish at WILL…but NOT US! He does not seem to require our help.

What* I* refer to??? This is not my position; this is what the Church teaches as shown in both the Catechism of Trent and the CCC. In Gen 9:6 God commands that the punishment for murder be death; in CCC 2260 the Church essentially states: Yep, that’s what he said … and furthermore that’s always going to be true.

How is the ‘intent’ NOT wrong? To even believe there is a shadow of a doubt about the innocence of someone about to be executed, and to deny a hearing to check it out - How would you rate that ‘intent’?

I asked you before if you believe Scalia’s interpretation of the Constitutional issues was correct. How about answering that question first?

Ender

 

[4elise]

I’ve just posted this on another thread on this topic…

From the Vatican: vatican.va/roman_curia/se…enalty_en.html

Quote:
DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE
TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS
ON THE DEATH PENALTY

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are “cruel and unnecessary”. This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that “it is time to abolish the death penalty”.

It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.

Strasbourg, 21 June 2001.

 

[Sunflower15]

I’ve just posted this on another thread on this topic…

From the Vatican: vatican.va/roman_curia/se…enalty_en.html

Thanks for this post!

However, the opponent says that the opinions of JPII [and the new Catechism] are not in agreement with traditional Catholic teachings…

We would need to find something from the early Church Fathers or Aquinas [who probably favored the death penalty along with slavery…] or an ancient council [certainly not Vatican II].

 

[4elise]

Thanks for this post!

However, the opponent says that the opinions of JPII [and the new Catechism] are not in agreement with traditional Catholic teachings…

We would need to find something from the early Church Fathers or Aquinas [who probably favored the death penalty along with slavery…] or an ancient council [certainly not Vatican II].

So, then anything Pre Vatican II?

Well - the Catholic Church, under the Holy Fathers brought our Church into modern times and gave it the tools to address modern issues - with Vatican II – and then it only seems to make sense then that we look to these teaching to be applied today - we can apply the old teaching to decisions made in history to see if they were applied appropriately.

The teaching of our Church is SO beautiful - and makes me so proud to be a Catholic. God Bless

 

[ChadS]

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

I haven’t meant to ignore your post, but I was away from any and all computers over the long weekend. I wouldn’t advocate that judges or anybody ignore the law, even to achieve something as just as avoiding the excecution of an innocent man. Having said that, there needs to be some mechanism in place where this type of situation can be avoided. I can’t imagine that it’s in the best interests of our society to allow a provably innocent person to be executed because they ran out of appeals.

I understand how a person, in a completely open and fair trial, could be wrongly convicted. That doesn’t, however, make the verdict just because everything was above board and free of technical errors. Society shouldn’t become slaves to the laws we’ve enacted to protect us. Lest I be misconstrued for an anarchist I’m not saying that laws shouldn’t be followed or that we don’t need them, but we can’t become blind to the human side of things in our pursuit of justice.

ChadS

 

[Ender]

I wouldn’t advocate that judges or anybody ignore the law, even to achieve something as just as avoiding the excecution of an innocent man. Having said that, there needs to be some mechanism in place where this type of situation can be avoided.

I agree with this. This has been the point I’ve been trying to make: faced with a choice between ignoring the law on one hand or allowing the execution of an innocent man on the other, how should a judge rule? Clearly the resolution of the problem lies with the legislature to fix the law but that doesn’t help the judge resolve his dilemma.

It is easy to say ignore the law, save the man, and if that was the only effect of such a decision I think I would agree. What has to be realized, however, is the precedent that such a ruling sets: that a judge may ignore the law if it is necessary to achieve the result that in his opinion is preferred. Saving one man at the cost of the rule of law is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Excuse me…say what?

That the published Catechism of the Catholic Church is not in accordance with what the Church has traditionally taught? And not ‘binding on Catholics’?

You should at least try to respond to what I’ve actually said and not invent comments which you can then ridicule. I explicitly said that section 2267 is not in accord with what has been traditionally taught and because it is JPII’s prudential opinion it is not binding.

Ender

 

[Aquinas62]

I have a better way to rephrase the OP’s question.

"Is executing “Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt” Murderers acceptable?

I say not only yes, but it is required for true justice.

 

[Ender]

So, then anything Pre Vatican II?

Well - the Catholic Church, under the Holy Fathers brought our Church into modern times and gave it the tools to address modern issues - with Vatican II – and then it only seems to make sense then that we look to these teaching to be applied today - we can apply the old teaching to decisions made in history to see if they were applied appropriately.

Given that morality is unchanging throughout time and place, exactly what could it possibly mean that our Church has been brought into “modern times”? Are you saying that the Church was wrong in the past to teach that capital punishment was not only just but necessary and that she didn’t correct this error until 1995?

I also made the claim that the teaching in 2267 is a break from the past (and doesn’t even correspond with other teachings today) so finding something from the past that supports 2267 is necessary if you wish to refute that claim. On the other hand, you seem to implicitly agree with my statement when you say that the Church was brought into modern times. What else could that mean other than what is taught now is not what was taught before?

Ender

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I have a better way to rephrase the OP’s question.

"Is executing “Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt” Murderers acceptable?

I say not only yes, but it is required for true justice.

I’m with you there. The world is skewed in favor of the wicked.

 

[Sunflower15]

You should at least try to respond to what I’ve actually said and not invent comments which you can then ridicule. I explicitly said that section 2267 is not in accord with what has been traditionally taught and because it is JPII’s prudential opinion it is not binding.

Ender

Sorry I took so long…

My response is that IF a Pope’s opinion on morals is not binding, neither is Aquinas’ nor any other Doctor or Father of the Church’s opinion on morals binding on Catholics…

[but I did think that the teaching of ANY Pope on morals was binding upon ALL Catholics…as opposed to ANYone else’s teachings on morals…]

I also want to answer to your post of the Justices,

[your quote] ‘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.’

My response; just as long as you don’t agree with the Justices doing that same ‘harm’ in regards to ignoring the law ‘based on personal opinions’ when it comes to Abortion…
since it’s the same intent - to save innocent lives from unjust laws.

 

[Sunflower15]

I’m with you there. The world is skewed in favor of the wicked.

I started another thread for the guilty [death penalty in general] and this one for the innocent in regards to the death penalty pretty much simultaneously. My hypothesis was that 50% would go for the death penalty of the guilty but no one would go for the execution of innocent ones…I have been proved wrong!

Please, feel free to post to your heart’s content on the other one about ‘guilty’ executions…

Interestingly, posters have been much less compassionate on this one dealing with ‘innocent’ convicts!

Go figure!

 

[Sunflower15]

I’m with you there. The world is skewed in favor of the wicked.

yes, and it’s fueled by HATE [which ONLY has ONE source]…

 

[4elise]

I agree with this. This has been the point I’ve been trying to make: faced with a choice between ignoring the law on one hand or allowing the execution of an innocent man on the other, how should a judge rule? Clearly the resolution of the problem lies with the legislature to fix the law but that doesn’t help the judge resolve his dilemma.

It is easy to say ignore the law, save the man, and if that was the only effect of such a decision I think I would agree. What has to be realized, however, is the precedent that such a ruling sets: that a judge may ignore the law if it is necessary to achieve the result that in his opinion is preferred. Saving one man at the cost of the rule of law is the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.

Ender

Ender would you advocate a medical facility ‘not following the law’ and refusing to perform an abortion?

Precedent - I say set it - DON’T PUT THE INNOCENT TO DEATH.

 

[4elise]

Given that morality is unchanging throughout time and place, exactly what could it possibly mean that our Church has been brought into “modern times”? Are you saying that the Church was wrong in the past to teach that capital punishment was not only just but necessary and that she didn’t correct this error until 1995?

I also made the claim that the teaching in 2267 is a break from the past (and doesn’t even correspond with other teachings today) so finding something from the past that supports 2267 is necessary if you wish to refute that claim. On the other hand, you seem to implicitly agree with my statement when you say that the Church was brought into modern times. What else could that mean other than what is taught now is not what was taught before?

Ender

What has changed - in modern times - is our ability to remove the danger from society, by providing imprisonmentfor life. This was not always the case. It is today.

 

[Aquinas62]

I started another thread for the guilty [death penalty in general] and this one for the innocent in regards to the death penalty pretty much simultaneously. My hypothesis was that 50% would go for the death penalty of the guilty but no one would go for the execution of innocent ones…I have been proved wrong!

Please, feel free to post to your heart’s content on the other one about ‘guilty’ executions…

Interestingly, posters have been much less compassionate on this one dealing with ‘innocent’ convicts!

Go figure!

OK… I wasn’t aware of another thread. but in response to the OP… my answer is a resounding NO!!! it is NEVER ok to execute an innocent.

That being said, just curious, what was the % who were ok with the death penalty on the other thread?

 

[Aquinas62]

What has changed - in modern times - is our ability to remove the danger from society, by providing imprisonmentfor life. This was not always the case. It is today.

Would that only be the case… I would like to know the stats on the percentage of “lifers” in prison actually die in prison? I mean the ones in for murder.