Massachusetts bishops speak out against death penalty for alleged Boston Marathon bomber

[DaveBj]

In fact, this is very similar to the argument my cousin used to make.

I’d say that under the death penalty there’s a possibility of making a mistake and executing the wrong person.

My cousin would agree that there’s that possibility . . . but if someone’s not executed there’s the theoretical possibility they could be set free to kill again.

And as an opponent, as you say, I can’t 100% guarantee that.

And I’d also want to know that “life means life,” no exceptions.

And that’s why I would apply the death penalty only in cases where these is no doubt whatsoever.

 

[FollowChrist34]

In fact, this is very similar to the argument my cousin used to make.

I’d say that under the death penalty there’s a possibility of making a mistake and executing the wrong person.

My cousin would agree that there’s that possibility . . . but if someone’s not executed there’s the theoretical possibility they could be set free to kill again.

And as an opponent, as you say, I can’t 100% guarantee that.

And I’d also want to know that “life means life,” no exceptions.

Yes, I once saw on TV where some official (police, judge, can’t remember exactly) said he believed that some had gone to death for crimes they did not commit. But most if not all of them had committed other crimes. In other words, you don’t end up on death row without a pretty serious criminal record. But still justice is justice. I don’t want to see someone go to their death for something they didn’t do. And it does happen. And I believe it happens disproportionately to minorities and to the very poor.

Yet, for whatever reason, I am not 100% comfortable with taking the death penalty off the table completely. (Maybe just make it a lot tougher to apply in a case.) And as for the argument that we’ll turn Tsaneraev into a martyr, I am skeptical. People like that do not really need causes, injustices to act. They’ll attack us anyway. The decadence of Western culture is the best recruiting tool ISIS and/or other terrorist groups have.

 

[DaveBj]

Yes, I once saw on TV where some official (police, judge, can’t remember exactly) said he believed that some had gone to death for crimes they did not commit. But most if not all of them had committed other crimes. In other words, you don’t end up on death row without a pretty serious criminal record. But still justice is justice. I don’t want to see someone go to their death for something they didn’t do. And it does happen. And I believe it happens disproportionately to minorities and to the very poor.

Yet, for whatever reason, I am not 100% comfortable with taking the death penalty off the table completely. (Maybe just make it a lot tougher to apply in a case.) And as for the argument that we’ll turn Tsaneraev into a martyr, I am skeptical. People like that do not really need causes, injustices to act. They’ll attack us anyway. The decadence of Western culture is the best recruiting tool ISIS and/or other terrorist groups have.

I am comfortable with Tsarnaev’s becoming a martyr in those circles that are going to consider him a martyr anyway. I’m not comfortable with the possibility if his being able to do further harm through his future words or deeds.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I am comfortable with Tsarnaev’s becoming a martyr in those circles that are going to consider him a martyr anyway. I’m not comfortable with the possibility if his being able to do further harm through his future words or deeds.

I see I misspelled Tsarnaev’s name in my original post. Apologies for that oversight; as for his fate I am fine either way, yay or nay on the death penalty.

 

[TMC]

Either capital punishment is intrinsically evil or it isn’t…*And if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera)
Ender

If you are asking me, I say yes. You asked what the Pope has said. I have not heard him make that statement. I have heard him say that the death penalty is not justified.

 

[Ender]

In a previous post I agreed that Tsarnaev has been neutralized for the moment. My question for opponents of the death penalty is whether or not they can absolutely guarantee that Tsarnaev will never again be able to have any influence in human society, whether by action (killing another person), by influence (convincing others to kill), or, as in the hypothetical example above, actually being released back into society. The obvious answer is that they cannot. Thus, the wording in the first sentence of CCC para 2267 is still applicable, and the use of the death penalty in this case is still valid.

The real problem with this argument is not so much that it is wrong but that it is not the most important consideration. What is missing here is any consideration of justice. The first question to ask in sentencing is not “what is necessary for protection”; but “what is the just punishment for the crime”? If executing Tsarnaev is not a just punishment then how does our desire for protection allow us to punish him unjustly, but if it is a just punishment then what is the argument for not punishing him as his crime deserves? It is justice that is the primary consideration, not protection.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If you are asking me, I say yes. You asked what the Pope has said. I have not heard him make that statement. I have heard him say that the death penalty is not justified.

It makes a difference as to whether you consider his comments to be a statement of a new doctrine on capital punishment or his personal opinion about the advisability of using it in current circumstances. It seems to me he has said no more than JPII said before him, and that in both cases what was said was prudential and not doctrinal.

Ender

 

[TMC]

It makes a difference as to whether you consider his comments to be a statement of a new doctrine on capital punishment or his personal opinion about the advisability of using it in current circumstances. It seems to me he has said no more than JPII said before him, and that in both cases what was said was prudential and not doctrinal.

Ender

I find that the main difference between “prudential” and “doctrinal” teachings is whether the hearer agrees with the teaching or not. What I know is that the Pope is teaching that the death penalty is not morally justified, and I agree with him.

 

[DaveBj]

The real problem with this argument is not so much that it is wrong but that it is not the most important consideration. What is missing here is any consideration of justice. The first question to ask in sentencing is not “what is necessary for protection”; but “what is the just punishment for the crime”? If executing Tsarnaev is not a just punishment then how does our desire for protection allow us to punish him unjustly, but if it is a just punishment then what is the argument for not punishing him as his crime deserves? It is justice that is the primary consideration, not protection.

Ender

I am not in disagreement with you; I was just focusing momentarily on the lesser issue of “neutralization.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

I find that the main difference between “prudential” and “doctrinal” teachings is whether the hearer agrees with the teaching or not. What I know is that the Pope is teaching that the death penalty is not morally justified, and I agree with him.

His actual words indicate that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. And the teaching of the CCC is clear. His teaching is a “general” evaluation of todays society.

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 an unjust aggressor.

Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,

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.” (EV 56)

I don’t see where the words “not morally justified,” is used in the links or his original text in the context you suggest? Do you have it?

ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-calls-abolishing-death-penalty-and-life-imprisonment

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would say the DP like Just War…

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.” (EV 56)

Is reduced to…

“are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

However, be it that is the case, then as rare as they may be, they are “justified”. I can’t see where a case can be made contrary since at the end of the day if only “one” in the history of man existed, it is still justified.

Frankly I can’t see where a case can be made to abolish the DP on a Federal level. Certainly not this case as its the very example of the DOJ jumping on the aggregating factors in which the Pope well could be referring to. “a rare case”.

Now the three muslims murdered case, thats a good place to start with a Kangaroo Court proceeding. There you would be doing justice and serving the greater good of fairness. Imho. State by State and then Federal. And then honestly. I think we would have to agree with the Pope, “a rare case” would possibly still exist until Christ returns.

Here’s the thing, even in CT while there’s a death penalty, no one really wants to apply it which is a good thing. But when a case comes along “a rare case” like the Cheshire CT home invasion, then the public concern appears to take a curious change. Mass, not a case in 68 years. Realistically, state by state much can be done. But that “a rare case” exists, I think there will always be one which raise’s the public minds to a level to even consider the DP.

 

[Ender]

I find that the main difference between “prudential” and “doctrinal” teachings is whether the hearer agrees with the teaching or not. What I know is that the Pope is teaching that the death penalty is not morally justified, and I agree with him.

Just as there is a difference between fallible and non-fallible teachings there is also a difference between doctrine and personal judgment. The main practical difference being that we have no obligation to agree with the judgments of others, even of popes. It also matters in that if Francis’ words are prudential then there is no concern that he has repudiated 2000 years of church teaching on the matter, which should be of no small concern to everyone. Finally, it matters because it determines the types of arguments that are appropriate. Saying capital punishment is unwise demands an entirely different approach than saying it is immoral.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Is a Catholic morally obligated to oppose the death penalty?

 

[Ender]

Here’s the thing, even in CT while there’s a death penalty, no one really wants to apply it which is a good thing. But when a case comes along “a rare case” like the Cheshire CT home invasion, then the public concern appears to take a curious change. Mass, not a case in 68 years. Realistically, state by state much can be done. But that “a rare case” exists, I think there will always be one which raise’s the public minds to a level to even consider the DP.

The Catechism of Trent asserts:From what has been said, it is easy to see how inclined man is to those sins which are prohibited by this Commandment, and how many are guilty of murder, if not in fact, at least in desire. As, then, the Sacred Scriptures prescribe remedies for so dangerous a disease, the pastor should spare no pains in making them known to the faithful.* Of these remedies the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder*.
What is the message we send when it takes a truly horrific murder for us to decide it is appropriate to execute the killer? It seems to me we imply that a “normal” murder is not all that bad, which is the opposite of the message Trent thought it necessary to send. How can anyone form a just conception of the wickedness of murder if we ourselves don’t treat it as especially wicked?

Ender

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Catechism of Trent asserts:From what has been said, it is easy to see how inclined man is to those sins which are prohibited by this Commandment, and how many are guilty of murder, if not in fact, at least in desire. As, then, the Sacred Scriptures prescribe remedies for so dangerous a disease, the pastor should spare no pains in making them known to the faithful.* Of these remedies the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder*.
What is the message we send when it takes a truly horrific murder for us to decide it is appropriate to execute the killer? It seems to me we imply that a “normal” murder is not all that bad, which is the opposite of the message Trent thought it necessary to send. How can anyone form a just conception of the wickedness of murder if we ourselves don’t treat it as especially wicked?

Ender

vox.com/2014/8/19/6032981/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-the-crisis-in-iraq

he strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

I think you have to consider both as a person can also be a peoples. To me it just makes more sense imho.

 

[TMC]

His actual words indicate that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. And the teaching of the CCC is clear. His teaching is a “general” evaluation of todays society.

I don’t see where the words “not morally justified,” is used in the links or his original text in the context you suggest? Do you have it?

ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-calls-abolishing-death-penalty-and-life-imprisonment

I believe his exact phrasing was that the death penalty is “inadmissible.” I read that as not morally justified, but you are correct that I should make that clear. I think that, by saying the death penalty is always “inadmissible,” the Pope is saying it is not morally justified. I suppose one could find ways to make that statement mean something else.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe his exact phrasing was that the death penalty is “inadmissible.” I read that as not morally justified, but you are correct that I should make that clear. I think that, by saying the death penalty is always “inadmissible,” the Pope is saying it is not morally justified. I suppose one could find ways to make that statement mean something else.

To me I read it in reverse as I think the just war and DP are mutually exclusive and the bigger is more likely to be identified as such as with the Isis dilemma. If I had to assume I would think the war became the individual death penalty which was perhaps contingent to a behavior which imho it would have to be a rare bird for sure, the example of isis may fit the bill. Either way it makes sense and I think a fine thread on this through history leaves the door open for a rare bird. How would you have a just war and not a just death penalty for example?

 

[TMC]

Just as there is a difference between fallible and non-fallible teachings there is also a difference between doctrine and personal judgment. The main practical difference being that we have no obligation to agree with the judgments of others, even of popes. It also matters in that if Francis’ words are prudential then there is no concern that he has repudiated 2000 years of church teaching on the matter, which should be of no small concern to everyone. Finally, it matters because it determines the types of arguments that are appropriate. Saying capital punishment is unwise demands an entirely different approach than saying it is immoral.

Ender

There are technical differences between fallible and infallible teachings, but the Church does not identify which of its teachings are “fallible,” so there we are not able to say which are which. Even if we were, “fallible” does not mean “optional,” and Catholics are not free to pick and choose between the Churches teachings. All of the teachings of the Church are mandatory. If a Catholic chooses to dissent from a particular teaching, that is that Catholic’s choice and between the Catholic, his conscience and God. But make no mistake, that person is in dissent.

In this case, the Pope is clearly saying that supporting the death penalty is immoral - not that the death penalty is merely unwise. He has called upon all Christians to abolish the death penalty in all its form, everywhere. One can dissent from that teaching, but it is simply intellectually dishonest to pretend that taking a position contrary to the Church’s teaching is something other than dissent.

 

[TMC]

To me I read it in reverse as I think the just war and DP are mutually exclusive and the bigger is more likely to be identified as such as with the Isis dilemma. If I had to assume I would think the war became the individual death penalty which was perhaps contingent to a behavior which imho it would have to be a rare bird for sure, the example of isis may fit the bill. Either way it makes sense and I think a fine thread on this through history leaves the door open for a rare bird. How would you have a just war and not a just death penalty for example?

I think you are correct that there is little room for a just war if the death penalty is never just. But, little room is not no room. I believe that a truly just war is the rarest of rare birds.

 

[LongingSoul]

Is a Catholic morally obligated to oppose the death penalty?

I believe the Church is grooming us to oppose it as being against the dignity of the human being in a similar way to how punishments like ‘stripes’, exile and slavery are no longer tolerable to the moral sensibilities of man. Some things take time to evolve and be fully illuminated and the Church has identified the growing opposition as a movement away from the culture of death.

A Catholic would have to have some theological and sociological expertise to stand in opposition to the Churchs ever strengthening position of it.