Oklahoma Execution Botched

[Stillsosola]

If some unspeakable and traumatic abuse suffered in childhood, unknown to the legal system, triggered this kind sadistic behaviour later in life, to what extent is the perpetrator justifiably held to be responsible?

Your reasoning is flawed this man who was executed has a rap sheet full of sex crimes, kidnappings and assaults he was a threat to not only other inmates guards and the community, sorry but I don’t think traumatic experiences justify crime or not getting executed for cold blooded murder if that was so then anyone who ever suffered trauma could justifiable commit heinous crimes and not suffer the consequences?

I’m just saying I’ve been in group counseling with people who suffered horrible abuse as kids not grow up to do anything like what this man has done

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your reasoning is flawed this man who was executed has a rap sheet full of sex crimes, kidnappings and assaults he was a threat to not only other inmates guards and the community, sorry but I don’t think traumatic experiences justify crime or not getting executed for cold blooded murder if that was so then anyone who ever suffered trauma could justifiable commit heinous crimes and not suffer the consequences?

I’m just saying I’ve been in group counseling with people who suffered horrible abuse as kids not grow up to do anything like what this man has done

My point wasn’t about Lockett specifically. It was a general point.

Second, I never claimed traumatic experiences justify the commission of crime, but they may mitigate culpability and may count against imposition of the death penalty in some cases, though not necessarily Lockett’s case.

I think you need to reread my post because I wasn’t arguing what you suppose I was.

 

[minkymurph]

I think long-drop hanging is by many supposed to be the most humane method if executed properly, but then there’s a lot of room for failure due to the importance of placement of the noose and length of the rope. So yes, given the beheading is either done by someone well trained in using a sword, or by a properly functioning guillotine, it’s probably the most humane.

I wasn’t actually aware they stitch the head back on, it’s at least better than where (or when, rather) families get a headless corpse.

In either case, I’m obviously no big fan of Saudi Arabia, and I by no means wish to see public executions in the States. But I mean what I said; I’d much rather see public executions than the current circus. Not least because I think that a population which demands executions, also should have to witness them.

I’m not a fan of the Saudi system either put you make a very valid point. If you condemn someone to death you should be prepared to witness it.

 

[Ender]

There is a reason why all men, at least in our current state, are mortal. God, who is Justice Itself, has definitively determined that capital sin justly merits capital punishment - thus we all have a sentence of death hanging over us. That cannot be unjust given that it has been handed down by the Just Judge.

We agree on this.

What does give pause, however, is the certain knowledge that human beings are to a large or small extent a product of their culture and upbringing. At least some moral failures are moral failures that we all bear some responsibility for. It is that admixture of evil influences in the formation and upbringing of young children that is, at least, in part responsible for the capital moral crimes of individuals.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this but I’m sure I would be more cautious than you in letting this concern mitigate punishment.

To what extent these mitigate culpability is an open question and no doubt differs from individual to individual guilty of these types of crimes. It is the fact that the social, moral and psychological causes of these kinds of heinous acts are so little understood…

It is frequently argued that capital punishment is an offense against man’s dignity, but the real offense against his dignity is not holding him morally responsible for his actions. Animals are not morally responsible for their actions, but man is.In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)
Ender

 

[Peter_Plato]

We agree on this.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this but I’m sure I would be more cautious than you in letting this concern mitigate punishment.
It is frequently argued that capital punishment is an offense against man’s dignity, but the real offense against his dignity is not holding him morally responsible for his actions. Animals are not morally responsible for their actions, but man is.

Ultimately, true human dignity is found in what Lewis called "the weight of glory;” taking on responsibility and accountability for every thought, word and deed. It is in accepting this “weight” that we accept the nature and dignity of our humanity as Imago Dei.

Either we take on the dignity of being sons of the living God or we do not. Sin is an abdication of the dignity of being human in the true sense of rational and moral agent. If we forsake our birthright, we have cast-off the “dignity” that comes with it.

Dignity is not “applied” from outside by others, it is accepted, taken on and lived. This is why Christ, suffering all kinds of indignity, never lost his.

I appreciate your clarity - the sharp edged sword with which you parse thoughts being shared.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

“Let the gentlemen who commit the murders take the first step”
-Alphonse Karr, 19th century French Novelist, on proposals to abolish the death penalty.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

“Let the gentlemen who commit the murders take the first step”
-Alphonse Karr, 19th century French Novelist, on proposals to abolish the death penalty.

Which can also be translated as- “The morality of my actions aren’t based on an absolute moral truth, but on what you do to me.”

 

[pnewton]

No, it doesn’t. If you’re in favor of the death penalty for the sake of vengeance (which is what seems obvious from your comments), you’re not in favor of the Church’s view of the death penalty.

The death penalty as societal vengeance is never something a Catholic should argue for. I have found in almost all cases though, it is a straw man, as no one really believes in vengeance, but rather that justice is often seen as vengeance.

 

[pnewton]

the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’" You’re claiming that the Church’s assessment of modern imprisonment is incorrect?

For the record, I will claim that it is somewhat misleading, founded in assumption and not fact. As this is not a statement of faith and morals, but of sociology, specifically, penology, it can be as mistaken as the motion of the planets.

I believe it to be founded in hope and mercy, which is good, but I know that such cases do exist. I would be more than willing to fight for the day in which these people can be more safely housed, by repealing the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Until that happens, or the entire Constitution is restructured to prevent judicial review, the legal definition of what is cruel will mean that some prisoners will continue to be a threat to the lives of others.

I cannot oppose the death penalty on this point and maintain my own intellectual integrity. Rather, my opposition is that it devalues life in society and on balance is not worth the price we pay to our soul, even though I know that some people will die because we did not execute someone.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Rather, my opposition is that it devalues life in society and on balance is not worth the price we pay to our soul, even though I know that some people will die because we did not execute someone.

It is my opinion that if innocents die because we avoid an action that is not inherently immoral, then not only are we responsible for the deaths of these innocents, but we have devalued life anyway.

 

[pnewton]

It is my opinion that if innocents die because we avoid an action that is not inherently immoral, then not only are we responsible for the deaths of these innocents, but we have devalued life anyway.

If we could know of the future, I would agree. Since we do not know the future, then I do not. Also, while putting a man to death is not inherently immoral, it is not inherently moral, thus it may still be immoral in some situations. In the end, for me, abortion is a much bigger issue and until we change the way we view human life, we will not reverse abortion.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If we could know of the future, I would agree. Since we do not know the future, then I do not. Also, while putting a man to death is not inherently immoral, it is not inherently moral, thus it may still be immoral in some situations. In the end, for me, abortion is a much bigger issue and until we change the way we view human life, we will not reverse abortion.

The number of executions in the U.S. for the past several years is actually a very small number (less than the number of states). Basically, only a handful of states actually carry out executions, and all except Texas are in the single digits. These are rather nasty folks we’re dealing with, and it is highly unusual at this point in time to make a mistake that will result in the execution of an innocent person.

 

[Ender]

If we could know of the future, I would agree. Since we do not know the future, then I do not.

Wait, what??

You earlier asserted that you could rationally predict what would happen - I know that some people will die because we did not execute someone. - how can you now claim to be unable to know the future when the implications of your position have been challenged?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’ll simply note that the Church believes in the dignity of the human person.

The irony of this assertion is rather lost on the people who make it. Why do we believe in the dignity of human life? Because we are told by God himself that man is made in God’s image. And where does God tell us this? In Genesis 9:6, where God says *“for in the image of God He made man”.

*But here’s the ironic part: God says this by way of explanation for why capital punishment is necessary.
*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
*The argument from dignity is an argument for, not against, capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Sarcelle]

Sorry, you’ll need to wait awhile. The irony is their too busy critiquing the moral conduct of other nations than to address issues in their own country.

Huh?

The post.abive this post quoted abive Catholics.

It did not mention Americans. Unless you think Catholics equals Americans.

 

[Sarcelle]

Another difference is that the person who was executed was an actual living person, as opposed to a microscopic-sized embryo that is only visible via specialized medical instruments.

That microscopic sized embryo is a living person.

If.it.isn’t living why the need to kill it?

If it wasn’t a person, what is it? A poodle?

 

[Sarcelle]

I was stating a physiological and scientific fact. What do you have against science?

Are you trying to say that the embryo you mentioned isn’t human?

Than what.is it?

 

[J_Peterson]

The irony of this assertion is rather lost on the people who make it. Why do we believe in the dignity of human life? Because we are told by God himself that man is made in God’s image. And where does God tell us this? In Genesis 9:6, where God says *“for in the image of God He made man”.

*But here’s the ironic part: God says this by way of explanation for why capital punishment is necessary.
*Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
*The argument from dignity is an argument for, not against, capital punishment.

Ender

I could be wrong but I don’t think many in this thread are arguing against capital punishment in an absolute way. Many of us go by what the Church teaches in the most recent Catechism.

The ancient Israelites had no way to protect their society from dangerous people and may have found it necessary to kill another man. How often they excecuted people I don’t know, but I do know that while God allows it, He doesn’t command we kill all people guilty of murder.

Even if some don’t like it, some moral issues are relative to the time and culture they take place in. When I say I’m against capital punishment, I mean I am against capital punishment in the United States in 2014. God gave us hearts and brains, we should be using both.

 

[Ender]

I could be wrong but I don’t think many in this thread are arguing against capital punishment in an absolute way.

There are two forms of arguments against capital punishment: moral and prudential. The problems come from trying to raise a moral objection using prudential arguments. A claim that the death penalty should not be used because of the problems it creates is at least valid (whether it is accurate is another issue), but claims that the death penalty should not be used because it is cruel and an offense against human dignity is invalid. That argument cannot be made without impugning 2000 years of church teaching.

Many of us go by what the Church teaches in the most recent Catechism.

If by this you mean you go by solely what is said in section 2267 you still have to determine whether that teaching is prudential or doctrinal. You should also give at least some thought to sections 2260 and 2266 that cite other doctrines that conflict with a “2267 is doctrine” conclusion.

The ancient Israelites had no way to protect their society from dangerous people and may have found it necessary to kill another man.

The capabilities of the ancient Israelites are irrelevant. We are speaking of the Traditional teaching of the church that was unchanged until (at least) the second half of the 20th century. There is little question that prisons have a lengthy history.*Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history. * (JPII, 2009)

I do know that while God allows it, He doesn’t command we kill all people guilty of murder.

True, but a bit misleading. The church has always recognized the validity of prudential challenges to the use of capital punishment, but the exception does not invalidate the rule. Capital punishment for at least the crime of murder should be the rule, not the exception.It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels, we have precepts and examples of this. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but* a decree and a precept**. *(St. Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13)

Even if some don’t like it, some moral issues are relative to the time and culture they take place in.

But not, apparently, this one.Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Fr. John Hardon)

When I say I’m against capital punishment, I mean I am against capital punishment in the United States in 2014.

As a prudential choice you are surely justified in taking that position, but no more so than those who take the opposite position.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Wait, what??

You earlier asserted that you could rationally predict what would happen - I know that some people will die because we did not execute someone. - how can you now claim to be unable to know the future when the implications of your position have been challenged?

Ender

Yes, I know some things that will happen in the future, like it will rain. I do not know how much, when or where. So yes, I do know that some will be killed in prison. I do not know who they will be or the who will commit the murder.