Is the death penalty really inadmissable?

[StephenW]

it would help if you would explain “defined doctrine.”

The first thing that came to my mind, for some reason, was Trent defining the books that make up the OT and NT, and also that the canon of Sacred Scripture was closed. I believe this was in response to Luther who rejected what was received by the Church. Up to that point, it is my understanding, that the Church had not actually defined what was in and out of Scripture and that nothing could be added to it. What did exist were affirmations of local councils, starting in the late 300’s at Hippo, affirmations of what we hold today as the canon.

So, theoretically, then, I suppose, one could argue that up to that point that the canon could have been changed (addition or subtraction), but in reality, I don’t think that was really possible because of the Church’s very long-standing tradition. In other words, one could argue that the constant use of these books, and no others, particular their use liturgically, for probably 1000 years by the time of Trent, would demonstrate that the Scriptures were complete and correct. That is a good argument, but nevertheless, the Church had not actually defined the canon and closed it. Thus, while the canon was universally believed/held (I presume), there was a lack of a definition.

Definitions, as they often do, settle questions and end controversies. I think it was St. Augustine that said of the pope’s response, during the pelagian conflict, “The pope has spoken, the controversy has ended.” Pelagianism, is essentially, that you can save yourself. This seems a rather self-evident error, at least to me, by just reading one of the Gospels or some of St. Paul. I mean, it seems obvious, but defining that God always takes the initiative and that ours is always a response, is to end the controversy. The Church does not go about defining doctrine for the sake of defining it. It is typically a response to some question, issue or controversy.

Probably the best way to approach the question of defined doctrine, then, is to start with a theological question and, then, research what the Church has held over the centuries. If the Fathers of the early Church all agreed on a particular question, and if too, that agreement carried on from century to century in the Church, that is a really good indication that it is true. Regardless, in the end, it is the judgment of the Church’s teaching authority. This authority finds it necessary, at certain points in history, to actually define a doctrine.

I hope this helps in some way to explain what I mean by “defined doctrine”.

 

[MarysLurker]

Can any government eliminate the risk that a life sentenced serial killer will falsify evidence decades later (once the case is forgotten, witnesses have died, etc.) in order to overturn his conviction or get release on bail?

Any answer?

 

[StephenW]

Is slavery ok? What about lending money at interest?

The Church participated in the first, and it is even found throughout the Bible. The second was condemned for centuries, before ceasing to be so.

Churchmen also engaged in using torture in their tribunals. They sold sacraments, indulgences, engaged in sexual misconduct and misappropriation of funds (i.e. stealing). Today we see the sexual abuse of minors and high ranking prelates covering it up, and financial abuse. Some bishops in the US had slaves. As horrible as all that is, none of these things, including slavery, were ever defined doctrines in the Church.

Regarding taking interest on a loan, it is my understanding that there was a different sort of economy involved and a different understanding of economy. This is not my area of study, but I think this is basically correct. The economy involved the notion of a “fix pie”. Let’s say you had 3 acres of land on which to grow food for yourself and your family. Now, suppose your crop failed and you needed food. You go to your neighbor for food and he loans you food, and the interest you must pay him requires that you give him 1 acre of land. Can you see where this is going? This is unlike our notion of economy today and how our economy works-- generation of wealth. Nevertheless, even today, one can charge such exorbitant interest on a loan that it would be immoral. Think of the loan sharks on the streets and the rates of some credit cards.

In short, slavery was never a defined doctrine and usury (exploitation with high interest) is what the Church was actually condemning. I may not be entirely accurate in my explanation about taking interest on a loan, but I think it is in the ballpark. The basic idea is taking advantage of someone in need.

 

[Motherwit]

MarysLurker:

Can any government eliminate the risk that a life sentenced serial killer will falsify evidence decades later (once the case is forgotten, witnesses have died, etc.) in order to overturn his conviction or get release on bail?

Any answer?

And the question that could also be asked, can any government eliminate the risk of executing an innocent man?

It is known that the Jewish leaders hated the death penalty as expressed by numerous scholars. The Sandhedrin stopped issuing death sentences before the end of the first century.

“It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.” - 12th-century Jewish legal scholar Maimonides.

 

[MarysLurker]

And the question that could also be asked, can any government eliminate the risk of executing an innocent man?

That is not the question that I asked.

Any government cannot eliminate the risk of putting an innocent person to death by eliminating capital punishment because other, non-capital sentences (such as life imprisonment) can also put innocent people to death. Pope Francis makes this very argument in Fratelli Tutti. Your argument (and the Holy Father’s) thus become a slippery slope.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

And the question that could also be asked, can any government eliminate the risk of executing an innocent man?

That is not the question that I asked.

Any government cannot eliminate the risk of putting an innocent person to death by eliminating capital punishment because other, non-capital sentences (such as life imprisonment) can also put innocent people to death. Pope Francis makes this very argument in Fratelli Tutti. Your argument (and the Holy Father’s) thus become a slippery slope.

That hasn’t been the experience in all the other Christian countries who haven’t had a death penalty for 50, 70 or 100 years. The systems have adapted accordingly and successfully.

 

[MarysLurker]

That hasn’t been the experience in all the other Christian countries who haven’t had a death penalty for 50, 70 or 100 years. The systems have adapted accordingly and successfully

So those countries have never had a formerly imprisoned murderer kill again?

(Warning: linked articles are disturbing)

10 Serial Killers Who Were Shockingly Released From Prison Early - Listverse

Murderer released after being deemed too old to kill again, kills again

 

[AlNg]

this is still the doctrine of the church.

True, but the question is whether or not the teaching can change. Already we see cracks in the teaching, although not a complete overthrow at this time:
Roman Catholic colleges congratulate SS couples on their marriages.
Roman Catholic candidate for President marries a SS couple and is not excommunicated.
The Pope says that it is not for him to judge this.
The Pope welcomes a SS couple at the Vatican and appears to be very friendly to their situation.
Catholic seminaries are reported to be hotbeds of homosexual activity and homosexuals are in leadership positions in the Church. This has been going on for sometime as the following video shows.

I suspect that this response could be deleted. So let’s see what happens before I go further.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

That hasn’t been the experience in all the other Christian countries who haven’t had a death penalty for 50, 70 or 100 years. The systems have adapted accordingly and successfully

So those countries have never had a formerly imprisoned murderer kill again?

The 3 examples in those 2 articles of released prisoners who murdered again don’t prove your point. Thailand had the death penalty on its books but the guy was not sentenced to that. Unless you are proposing it be mandatory for every murder conviction to receive a death sentence? There’ll be that risk.

 

[MarysLurker]

The 3 examples in those 2 articles of released prisoners who murdered again don’t prove your point

Why not? The very limited examples given prove that some murderers are continuing threats who cannot be reformed.

My actual point was that some criminals abuse habeas corpus and otherwise escape prison through non-physical means (such as conning the parole board). I asked, is there a way to prevent that short of executing them?

I do not see a way of doing so–unless you want to abolish habeas corpus and parole, and so have perpetual imprisonment… an option that Pope Francis has said is the same thing as capital punishment.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

The 3 examples in those 2 articles of released prisoners who murdered again don’t prove your point

Why not? The very limited examples given prove that some murderers are continuing threats who cannot be reformed.

My actual point was that some criminals abuse habeas corpus and otherwise escape prison through non-physical means (such as conning the parole board). I asked, is there a way to prevent that short of executing them?

I do not see a way of doing so–unless you want to abolish habeas corpus and parole, and so have perpetual imprisonment… an option that Pope Francis has said is the same thing as capital punishment.

I’m attempting to point out that while you say that mine (the Churchs) position is a slippery slope, that so is yours. The articles you linked only had 3 cases where the released prisoner re-offended. 2 of those were in districts that already had the death penalty on the books but it wasn’t used. To guarantee that a murderer can’t be released to reoffend would mean executing all murder convictions. That is a very slippery slope.

 

[MarysLurker]

To guarantee that a murderer can’t be released to reoffend would mean executing all murder convictions. That is a very slippery slope.

You are assuming that all murderers present a future danger. No one ever said that.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

To guarantee that a murderer can’t be released to reoffend would mean executing all murder convictions. That is a very slippery slope.

You are assuming that all murderers present a future danger. No one ever said that.

How are we guaranteed to know which is which when it comes to sentencing?

 

[MarysLurker]

How are we guaranteed to know which is which when it comes to sentencing?

In America, the Eighth Amendment requires individualized sentencing for capital defendants. The defendant gets to present anything he wants in mitigation of the death sentence and the prosecution must disprove it. This is in addition to the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime itself AND the aggravating factor that makes the murder capital.

If it turns out the defense team missed some vindicating piece of evidence, a second set of defense lawyers can file a habeas petition to throw out the capital sentence.

Can all of this absolutely guarantee that only truly death worthy capital defendants will be executed? No. But this sword of “we can never be 100% sure” cuts both ways. If a murder defendant who IS a future danger escapes justice, an innocent person may die. Capital murder prosecution is a heads you lose, tails you lose situation.

Whether to flip the coin is a prudential judgment.

 

[goout]

goout:

Lending money at interest? What is the good that is pointed to?

Profit? You aren’t a socialist, are you

I simply asked a series of questions to open up a thought line.

 

[goout]

Motherwit:

And the question that could also be asked, can any government eliminate the risk of executing an innocent man?

That is not the question that I asked.

Any government cannot eliminate the risk of putting an innocent person to death by eliminating capital punishment because other, non-capital sentences (such as life imprisonment) can also put innocent people to death. Pope Francis makes this very argument in Fratelli Tutti. Your argument (and the Holy Father’s) thus become a slippery slope.

A slippery slope to what? Radical justice that transcends mere eye-for-eye justice?
Where’s my sled?

 

[MarysLurker]

A slippery slope to what? ?

What makes you think that eliminating capital punishment, and then eliminating life imprisonment (because, as Pope Francis says, it is analogous to CP), and then eliminating any sentence that is long enough to be analogous to life imprisonment (same reason), will bring forth “Radical justice that transcends mere eye-for-eye justice?”

What leads you to believe the outcome will even resemble justice?

 

[goout]

goout:

A slippery slope to what? ?

What makes you think that eliminating capital punishment, and then eliminating life imprisonment (because, as Pope Francis says, it is analogous to CP), and then eliminating any sentence that is long enough to be analogous to life imprisonment (same reason), will bring forth “Radical justice that transcends mere eye-for-eye justice?”

The Cross elevates justice. There are myriad crimes (many unknown to us) that cannot be rectified by human justice. The Cross takes that up. So human justice has to be prudential for the good of human beings, as we can accomplish it in that sphere.

If human welfare (or common good or whatever you’d like to call it) can be accomplished without killing the perpetrator, then that is a good thing. I happen to disagree that life in prison should be equated with CP, but that’s Francis’ viewpoint and I respect it while not sharing it.

 

[MarysLurker]

The Cross elevates justice. There are myriad crimes (many unknown to us) that cannot be rectified by human justice. The Cross takes that up. So human justice has to be prudential for the good of human beings, as we can accomplish it in that sphere.

Locking up human beings who have no regard for the sanctity of human life serves to elevate and protect the sanctity of human life. That was true before and after Calvary.

 

[goout]

goout:

The Cross elevates justice. There are myriad crimes (many unknown to us) that cannot be rectified by human justice. The Cross takes that up. So human justice has to be prudential for the good of human beings, as we can accomplish it in that sphere.

Locking up human beings who have no regard for the sanctity of human life serves to elevate and protect the sanctity of human life. That was true before and after Calvary.

I agree…