Is the death penalty really inadmissable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edjlopez23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Certainly.

Think of someone defrauding a vast number of people, involving massive sums of money, and thus, financially ruining these people and destroying their retirements. That is exactly what happened with Enron in 2001. If achieving justice is not a goal, but only the protection of society, then, all that is needed, in this case, is to remove these criminals from the company, such that they are no longer in positions of power that would enable them to repeat the offense elsewhere. Actually, you don’t even need to remove them from the company, but just demote them to a non-executive position.

Can you get a sense of the injustice involved if all one is doing by prison is preventing the criminal from committing the crime again (i.e. protecting society)? Furthermore, if the criminal, even if only for practical reasons, cannot commit the crime again (e.g. no more opportunity exists), then, there is no longer a basis for keeping him in prison.

Now, apply this to someone like Charles Manson and his bloody, heinous murders in the late 60’s. If he was in prison only to protect society from him, then, there is a glaring lack of justice involved. Whether it is Manson or the executives involved in the Enron fraud, not paying the debt of justice does harm to the common good of society.

So, again, the question is if there is an offence that is so grave that justice demands that it be redressed by the death penalty? Another way to put it is to ask, would not using the death penalty in some of the most horrific cases result in an injustice? It seems clear that it would be an injustice to society not to put the Enron executives in prison, just because they could never be able to repeat a like crime. The punishment, of course, must be commensurate with the deed, that is, the justice that is demanded. The Enron executives, of course, should not be put to death for what they did. Another way to put the question is this: Is there nothing that anyone could ever possibly do, and nothing that anyone has ever done, such that justice would demand that they be put to death?
 
No, every pope until the present pope has recognized that the state has the authority to apply CP without assessing its “admissibility”, whatever that is.
 
Last edited:
In the case white collar crime you presented, by keeping him or her imprisoned, society is protected from further financial crimes.
 
It’s always interesting to see how Catholics on these boards agree with the pope when the pope agrees with them (e.g. Humanae Vitae, Humani Generis) but disagree with the pope when he doesn’t (Laudato Si, Fratelli Tutti).

Such Catholics who choose to dissent conveniently claim “prudential judgment.” How convenient to be able to just play that card when it suits their own beliefs.
 
MikeInVA said:
No, every pope until the present pope has recognized that the state has the authority to apply CP without assessing its “admissibility”, whatever that is.
Click to expand...
If you do not know the term, then why do you judge? Lack of understanding is an argument tobe the student, not the tea9.
 
MikeInVA said:
No, every pope until the present pope has recognized that the state has the authority to apply CP without assessing its “admissibility”, whatever that is.
Click to expand...
Unless something is declared a dogma to be held for all time, it’s the role of each Pope to address the circumstances of his time.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
MikeInVA:
Including all previous supreme pontiffs who taught otherwise.
Click to expand...
That would be zero, as the way the Holy Father is presenting it is within the modern temporal context. He is not say it has never been admissible.
Click to expand...
We have always been taught that eternal truths are eternal. Faith and morals do not change with the times or the location, they are the same always and everywhere. Everyone who promotes contraception will say, “You’re so old-fashioned, why doesn’t the Church get with the times? Relationships are different now.”

So it rings quite hollow when we are told “well, circumstances have changed, and we are at a point in history where something that used to be admissible is no longer admissible. That’s the way of the world.”

Perhaps it is telling that, other than the United States, the nations that retain capital punishment are Islamist or Communist. It certainly isn’t Catholic justice that’s being meted out in these instances.

 
TheAdvocate197 said:
In the case white collar crime you presented, by keeping him or her imprisoned, society is protected from further financial crimes.
Click to expand...
How, exactly, are you thinking that could happen (i.e. Enron execs committing further financial crimes)?

With the Enron example, we are dealing with a real-world scenario. There is nothing theoretical here or abstract. The Enron scandal involved very complex accounting fraud. Now, take any of the key figures involved, such as Ken Lay, Skilling, Fastow, etc. Their fraud was publicly known around the world, and the fact that they were responsible for a $60+ billion company disappearing virtually overnight (massive stockholder loss). How could any of them ever be in a position again to do anything, even remotely, like this? Who (corporate board), in their right mind, would ever give them charge of any corporation, no matter how small, ever again? For that matter, who would ever give any one of them access to any business’ accounting or finances? Do you think a bank would hire anyone of them as a teller? What kind of jobs do you think they will be able to get? A greeter at Wal-Mart, a sacker at Kroger’s (not joking here)? Maybe they could get a janitorial job, night watchman or some such.

So, using the real-world example of Enron, what financial crimes would you expect someone such as Skilling to be able to commit in the future, such that he must be in prison to protect society? What are the financial crimes you have in mind and exactly how would he achieve such crimes?
 
And therefore, why would the death penalty be required of someone who killed someone else or numerous people? How, having been locked up for life, would they accomplish killing more people?
 
Yes it has been deemed wrong in every case. Thou shalt not kill = pro life = death penalty never the answer. Pope and all bishops agree.
 
I’m pretty sure the Pope IS Catholic, and his words mean more than yours 😛
ps. The Sun does NOT rotate around the earth, another 2000 year old theory proven false.
 
No, death penalty isn’t inadmissable.

Murder is, on the other hand.
 
Thank you for your initial question and exchange. I pray that you will continue to deepen your understanding of these often complicated matters. God bless you.
 
StephenW said:
So, again, the question is if there is an offence that is so grave that justice demands that it be redressed by the death penalty? Another way to put it is to ask, would not using the death penalty in some of the most horrific cases result in an injustice?
Click to expand...
Pius XII seemed to think so:

In the case where human life is made the object of a criminal gamble, where hundreds and thousands are reduced to extreme want and driven to distress, a mere privation of civil rights would be an insult to justice.
pnewton said:
If you do not know the term, then why do you judge? Lack of understanding is an argument to be the student, not the teacher.
Click to expand...
The US bishops don’t know what the word means either. It is clearly ambiguous and no attempt was made to clarify it in the latest encyclical.

As you say:

The Pope cannot impose commandments on faithful Catholics because he wants to or finds it
expedient. Such a modern, voluntaristic concept of authority can only distort the true theological meaning of the papacy.

The true sense of this teaching authority of the Pope consists in his being the advocate of the Christian memory. The Pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it. (Cardinal Ratzinger)
 
That isn’t true. Someone speculated that that was what it was but Pope Francis in using the word ‘inadmissible’, makes it clear that it is forbidden for it’s damage to human dignity in the face of less bloody alternatives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top