Opinion on the death penalty?

[MonteRCMS]

Utter hogwash.

Prisoners' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

The National Prison Project is dedicated to ensuring that our nation's prisons, jails, and detention centers comply with the Constitution, domestic law, and human rights principles.

www.aclu.org

ACLU & prisoners rights

 

[angel12]

Rights does not equal no punishment. You obviously have no idea what life in prison is like. Do a little research. Hint: Google is your friend. But of course, that’s only if you’re actually interested in facts. If you’re not, do continue with the hogwash.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Rights does not equal no punishment. You obviously have no idea what life in prison is like. Do a little research. Hint: Google is your friend. But of course, that’s only if you’re actually interested in facts. If you’re not, do continue with the hogwash.

Delaware inmates charged with murder following prison riot

Eighteen inmates have been charged in connection with February's prison riot at Vaughn Correctional that resulted in the death of Lt. Steven Floyd.

whyy.org

 

[Ender]

If that line of thinking applied to something as serious as the death penalty, then it would certainly apply to lesser penalties as well. The reason that we ought not apply this line of reasoning is simple: we don’t imprison people who are as of yet innocent. We only imprison people for crimes that they are committing or have committed.

Yes, of course you’re right, but it seems the argument you use here conflicts with your earlier one. Instead of changing the word “execute” in my comment, let’s change the word imprison in yours, and make it “punish” instead. Now it reads

We only punish people for crimes that they are committing or have committed.

If we punish people for crimes they have committed and not for ones they only threaten to commit, then why is the most serious punishment reserved not for those who have committed murder but only for those who threaten it? What is your justification for executing a person? Is it not that he credibly threatens to kill? That is, we are not executing him because he has killed someone before but only because he threatens to kill again in the future. We are executing him for the threat, not the act, and there is nothing in the concept of justice that permits this.

The entire justice system is based around preventing further crimes for the good of society, and has been since Biblical times.

This is not accurate. It is not the basis of our justice system today and has never been the basis of any system, certainly not a Biblical one. The only thing that fully justifies punishment in and of itself is retribution. We are justified in punishing someone because he deserves it. This is why we only punish the guilty.

The entire justice system is built around…justice, and the simplest definition of justice is giving someone his due, treating a person as he deserves to be treated based on his own actions. Prevention of future crime is a valid objective, but it is a secondary one. The primary objective is justice - just retribution - and the loss of this understanding of what validates punishment is surely one of the unfortunate outcomes of the way 2267 is written.

 

[Ender]

Regarding the Delaware incident, of the eighteen men charged with the murder of the corrections officer, six of them were already serving life sentences. Given that Delaware does not allow the death penalty there is no way to punish any of those men for that killing. In the most literal sense of the term, they got away with murder. What’s more, everyone inside and outside knows it. How do you think the guards feel about working in that place?

 

[Greenfields]

This .
Also the anger and hate directed at the accused and sad satisfaction gained from revenge.

 

[Elf01]

Solitary confinement. True solitary confinement i.e. they may have space, even outside space, but no contact with anyone, including guards. Meals put through a hatch so no risk. The only thing may be medical care and I’m hoping that someone in a situation to need it isn’t going to be in a position to attack someone.

 

[Seagull]

Jails are filled with very strong people with anger issues.
They spend all day lifting weights, push ups, sit ups -
No one wants to be a prison guard -
It’s like entering a war zone.

 

[Ender]

This might seem a reasonable objection, but it is doesn’t agree with what the church teaches.

What is more, according to the Apostle Paul, God knows his own (2 Timothy 2.19), and it is impossible for any of them to perish by the whirlwinds and floods of any error, scandal, schism, persecution, heresy, tribulation, adversity or temptation, for he has foreseen from eternity and unchangeably the number of his elect and the extent of their merits in such a way that everything good and bad, what is theirs and not theirs, prosperity and adversity, all work together for them for good, except indeed that they appear even more glorious and commendable in adversity. (Albertus Magnus)

Also the anger and hate directed at the accused and sad satisfaction gained from revenge.

And does this denunciation apply as well to God who prescribed death for murderers and for the church who for 2000 years has acknowledged its legitimacy?

 

[Greenfields]

I thank God I live in a country that doesn’t have the death penalty.Nothing will change my point of view Ender.

 

[Ender]

I thank God I live in a country that doesn’t have the death penalty.Nothing will change my point of view Ender.

I can understand and respect that position, but I do think you should be consider the validity of your objections. Almost all of my comments are directed not at supporting capital punishment but at refuting the arguments made in opposition to it. If you’re going to take a position on something you really should be comfortable that your reasons for holding that opinion are sound. One can make a reasonable case for practical objections to the death penalty, but there really are no valid moral objections to it.

 

[godisgood77]

but there really are no valid moral objections to it.

Except the development of the Church’s teaching on the matter… which states ther death penalty is not allowable whenever a suitable alternative exists. When a suitable alternative exists, it is immoral to deliver the death penalty according to the Church

 

[Ender]

Except the development of the Church’s teaching on the matter… which states ther death penalty is not allowable whenever a suitable alternative exists. When a suitable alternative exists, it is immoral to deliver the death penalty according to the Church

A teaching cannot develop such that what was moral yesterday is immoral today.

“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Cardinal Newman)

Morality does not change with time or place; what was moral before is equally moral now. Circumstances change so that what was prudent before may well not be prudent now, and I think this reflects the opposition to capital punishment we have seen from the last three popes, but this opposition is prudential, not moral.

Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles, 2004)

 

[godisgood77]

A teaching cannot develop such that what was moral yesterday is immoral today.

It’s not immoral when suitable alternatives do not exist.

I am talking about the morality of applying the death penalty when a suitable alternative does exist… it would be immoral to do so if an alernative existS… according to the Church

 

[Ender]

It’s not immoral today when suitable alternatives exist. I am talking about the morality of applying the death penalty when a suitable alternative exists… it would be immoral to do so in that case… according to the Church

I’ll assume that by “suitable alternative” what you mean is the criminal can be safely imprisoned so he is no longer a threat. To start with, this has never been a requirement, nor has the past application of the death penalty ever been based on this consideration.

The real problem with that position is that it ignores the primary objective of punishment and focuses solely on a secondary objective. We do not justify punishment based on whether or not it provides protection. That is not a requirement. In applying a particular penalty the decision is not based on whether it protects, but on whether it is just, and for a punishment to be just it must be of commensurate severity with the crime.

Focusing on protection rather than justice distorts the entire concept of punishment, retribution, and even what it is that is most important to protect.

‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself." (Pius XII, 1953)

 

[godisgood77]

I’ll assume that by “suitable alternative” what you mean is the criminal can be safely imprisoned so he is no longer a threat. To start with, this has never been a requirement, nor has the past application of the death penalty ever been based on this consideration.

Hence the development of doctrine. The Church’ has come to a fuller understanding.

The real problem with that position is that it ignores the primary objective of punishment and focuses solely on a secondary objective.

Fully disagree. The first objective is still punishment… Any sentence for a crime is a punishment. You seem to be married to the death penalty being the only worthy punishment

Focusing on protection rather than justice distorts the entire concept of punishment, retribution, and even what it is that is most important to protect.

Not focusing on protection as the primary. Punishing the guilty party while offering theopportunity to repent is the primary objective.

Protection of society is a secondary… you seem to not want to consider that at all.

You and I have gone round and round on this before. You are not arguing with me, you’re arguing with St John Paul and the CCC…

 

[Ender]

Fully disagree. The first objective is still punishment… Any sentence for a crime is a punishment. You seem to be married to the death penalty being the only worthy punishment

The primary objective of punishment is not…punishment; it is retribution. It is a demand made by justice and it is what restores the balance of order.

[Punishment] is a weight placed to restore balance in the disturbed juridical order, and not aimed immediately at the fault as such. (Pius XII)

Not focusing on protection as the primary. Punishing the guilty party while offering the opportunity to repent is the primary objective.

Repentance is an objective, but it too is secondary.

Protection of society is a secondary… you seem to not want to consider that at all.

Not at all. The secondary objectives (rehabilitation, protection, deterrence) are all important, but of themselves do not determine the nature and extent of the punishment. It is the primary objective, and the need to satisfy its requirement, that determines the severity of the punishment.

That said, this explains why a secondary objective like protection cannot determine the severity of the punishment, which the catechism (2266) asserts must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

You may well argue that LWOP is a commensurate punishment for the crime of murder, but this is a judgment, a prudential opinion. It is surely not a moral pronouncement, and given that God himself has set death as the appropriate punishment it’s not at all clear why we should now ignore his judgment and give preference to yours.

You are not arguing with me, you’re arguing with St John Paul and the CCC…

I am very much arguing with your interpretation of those sources.

 

[Nelka]

You are back to changing the topic. The topic is Capital Punishment. The Church accepts it.

How can it accept such evil?

 

[godisgood77]

I am very much arguing with your interpretation of those sources.

And I yours…

Here is the the ‘plain as day’ Church teaching on the matter. Death penalty is not excluded as a potential penalty…only if non-lethal means are not available… Those cases where a Catholic could support the death penalty are practically non-existent… can you agree with that teaching?

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 the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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 definitely 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 nonexistent."68

 

[thistle]

How can it accept such evil?

Its not evil. It’s what the Church teaches and God gave the Church authority in matters of faith and morals. That means God fully supports all Church teachings. If you reject a Church teaching then you reject God.