Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[Verbum_Caro]

I agree, it is incomplete. The more complete way to say that would be, as John Paul II said, that as a practical matter the death penalty is always intrinsically evil. The death penalty may be morally licit under certain extreme circumstances, but in this day and age, incarceration makes renders any such circumstances obsolete, there is always an alternative to capital punishment, and therefore any capital punishment is intrinsically evil.

stanczyk,

I think people are going to take you to task on this. Is it possible that you are using the term “intrinsic evil” in a way other than is often used by the Church?

To wit, you claim both that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, but that the “death penalty may be morally licit under certain extreme circumstances”.

Veritatis splendor 81, for instance, says that “circumstances. . . can never transform an act intrinsically evil . . . into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice”

VC

 

[stanczyk]

Actually, incarceration does not, if deterrence is a legitimate objective. People are raped, maimed and killed in prisons by prisoners. Some prisoners, such as members of the Aryan Brotherhood, order murders outside of prison, and get them done. There have been murderers, like the torture/murderer recently executed in TExas who avowed that if he had another chance to murder, he would. There have been a number of those.

It seems inevitable to me to conclude that JPII’s statement could only relate to potentiality not actual conditions presently. He really didn’t explain his statement. But if we are to truly deter crimes among prisoners, we would have to build a substantial number of supermax prisons, at whatever cost. It seems to me that is necessarily a step within his thought process, but he only expressed the end point. He never explained how we might get there.

Deterrence is not a valid consideration. I think you are misreading John Paul II’s words if you interpret them to describe something yet to come. Here is the full setence from Evangelium Vitae:

Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
Evangelium Vitae 56
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

Clearly, this refers to the here and now. Actually, it refers to the state of the world almost 20 years ago, when the Evangelium Vitae was written. But his words are not aspirational.

You observe yourself that “we would have to build a substantial number of supermax prisons, at whatever cost.” Well, there you have it. The cost in life of even one unnecessary death penalty is greater than any cost in mere dollars. And again, deterrence is not the issue, this is a red herring. Defense of society after the fact is an issue, but this defense can be provided by high-security incarceration.

 

[rlg94086]

When there are alternative means to death in order to defend society, the government must make use of them. Any use of the death penalty when an alternative exists (i.e. lifetime incarceration) is violative to natural law. Since the alternative of lifetime incarceration is always present, the death penalty is therefore always violative of natural law.

As others have already explained, you proved yourself wrong by quoting the Catechism. Actions can’t be “intrinsically evil” while at the same time “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

The Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil or violative of Natural Law. You are completely in error.

 

[ExLibris]

My apologies for the curtness of my response, I regret that I have no couched this discussion in more polite terms.

As I just mentioned in my previous post, I think there is a danger of conflating “self defense” with “capital punishment.” I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, that what you are talking about is killing in self defense, which is morally permissible in order to defend oneself or another. Capital punishment, strictly speaking, is the killing of a person who presents no immediate threat, whereas self defense is the killing of a person who presents an immediate threat to the life of another person.

I applaud your obvious sincerity in approaching this issue and I hope that you can forgive rudeness on my part.

An apology is not necessary, good sir.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Deterrence is not a valid consideration. I think you are misreading John Paul II’s words if you interpret them to describe something yet to come. Here is the full setence from Evangelium Vitae:

Clearly, this refers to the here and now. Actually, it refers to the state of the world almost 20 years ago, when the Evangelium Vitae was written. But his words are not aspirational.

You observe yourself that “we would have to build a substantial number of supermax prisons, at whatever cost.” Well, there you have it. The cost in life of even one unnecessary death penalty is greater than any cost in mere dollars. And again, deterrence is not the issue, this is a red herring. Defense of society after the fact is an issue, but this defense can be provided by high-security incarceration.

Your assertions don’t fit together. Either prevention of rapes, maimings and murders is a worthwhile objective or it isn’t. I don’t think you are really saying it isn’t, so I’ll go to the other part of what you said.

Yes, I would think the Pope’s words would support establishment of many, many supermax prisons, which is the only way we could prevent rapes, maimings and murders in prisons. But until then, are you really ready to accept moral responsibility for killings ordered by the Aryan Brotherhood? I find it difficult to believe that you do.

 

[stanczyk]

NO NO NO. To say it is INTRISICALLY EVIL means that the very act itself is evil and can never be justified.

Chill out, Scott. You are mistaken. The death penalty, like all killing, is intrinsically evil unless certain conditions are met. When the death penalty is performed absent necessity, it is an intrinsically evil act.

Capital punishment can never be defined this way, as there are circumstances that make its use justified and licit, therefore it cannot ever be considered INTRINSICALLY evil.

Capital punishment when an alternative is available is an intrinsic evil. You are getting confused here, because capital punishment may be permissible when no alternative is available, but this is a separate sort of act. Capital punishment when no alternative exists may or may not be evil depending on the circumstances, and is therefore no intrinsically evil, its morality is circumstantial.

 

[rlg94086]

Capital punishment when an alternative is available is an intrinsic evil. You are getting confused here, because capital punishment may be permissible when no alternative is available, but this is a separate sort of act. Capital punishment when no alternative exists may or may not be evil depending on the circumstances, and is therefore no intrinsically evil, its morality is circumstantial.

So, you believe its evil is conditionally intrinsic?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, you believe its evil is conditionally intrinsic?

Conditionally intrinsic? Is that like a conservative liberal?

 

[stanczyk]

More on Scott’s point.

CCC 1756 specifies in pertinent part, “There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.”

Murder is an intrinsic evil, but since self defense or capital punishment when no alternative is available are morally permissible, it is clear that killing is not intrinsically evil, but rather specifically murder, a certain type of killing. The act of, for example, shooting someone, is therefore not an intrinsic evil in an of itself, but may be an intrinsic evil if the victim is not an exigent threat. If the person being shot is an exigent threat, then the the act of shooting is not murder, but self defense, and therefore not an intrinsic evil.

Likewise, with capital punishment, if the threat presented by the person being executed containable by some alternative means such as incarceration, the act of execution is an intrinsic evil. This sort of execution is a murder, not an act of self defense. Contrarily, if the person being executed can be contained by no other means (a practical impossibility today, as John Paul II has told us), then the execution is not an intrinsic evil.

This is highly complex, and I understand Scott’s confusion of the subject. However, Scott is clearly in error. Because today the alternative form of punishment of incarceration is available to defend society, all executions today fall into the first category of capital punishment, the intrinsically evil kind. Therefore capital punishment, for all practical purposes, is an intrinsic evil.

It is clear by way of analogy to murder/self defense, that capital punishment is analogous to killing, and capital punishment with alternative, or what we might call gratuitous capital punishment is an intrinsic evil, analogous to murder.

 

[LemonAndLime]

How does someone side for someone they do not agree with?

I side for them in the sense that I am praying for them and I am sympathetic to those who believe it is fair to invoke an eye for an eye justice system.

 

[Soulstorm]

I side for them in the sense that I am praying for them and I am sympathetic to those who believe it is fair to invoke an eye for an eye justice system.

I’ll ask in a different manner since the last time it was ignored.

Why is it not fair that someone who committed a murder and found guilty with damning evidence should not be sentence to death themselves? Why should they be instead treated to three meals a day, and at times only a few decades of confinement? It seems rather unfair that while one innocent person and their family lose everything the other simply loses a little more than a quarter of their life.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Likewise, with capital punishment, if the threat presented by the person being executed containable by some alternative means such as incarceration, the act of execution is an intrinsic evil. This sort of execution is a murder, not an act of self defense. Contrarily, if the person being executed can be contained by no other means (a practical impossibility today, as John Paul II has told us), then the execution is not an intrinsic evil.

I don’t think this is the Church’s teaching, as it allows for reasons other than “containing the threat” only.

But let’s focus on that anyway. It is absolutely a fact that incarceration in the U.S. today does not “contain the threat”. It just plain does not. Rapes, maimings and murders are committed in places of incarceration, and the same crimes are ordered from inside to confederates on the outside. Nobody can deny that, and nobody does. The threat is absolutely not contained.

So, it seems clear to me that instead of equating capital punishment with abortion, one should focus one’s argument in favor of establishing numerous supermax prisons as the next step. I realize it sounds dramatic and perhaps serves a political purpose to equate capital punishment with abortion, but the argument rests on utterly false premises.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

stanczyk,

Perhaps it might be helpful to inquire how familiar you are with the terminology that is being discussed. Is it possible that you’ve come to it from a different tradition? Have you had training or formal study in this area? There’s a chance that folks might be talking past each other because of different educational backgrounds.

VC

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’ll ask in a different manner since the last time it was ignored.

Why is it not fair that someone who committed a murder and found guilty with damning evidence should not be sentence to death themselves? Why should they be instead treated to three meals a day, and at times only a few decades of confinement? It seems rather unfair that while one innocent person and their family lose everything the other simply loses a little more than a quarter of their life.

An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.

Think of it this way. Let’s say a woman is injured permenantly, and has acid thrown in her face. Should it be fair to throw acid in the face of the perpetrator?

This kind of caveman justice is not fair. You’re not being a bigger and better person by fighting fire with fire. We should rise above it, not become as bad as them.

 

[Trader]

More on Scott’s point.

CCC 1756 specifies in pertinent part, “There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.”

Murder is an intrinsic evil, but since self defense or capital punishment when no alternative is available are morally permissible, it is clear that killing is not intrinsically evil, but rather specifically murder, a certain type of killing. The act of, for example, shooting someone, is therefore not an intrinsic evil in an of itself, but may be an intrinsic evil if the victim is not an exigent threat. If the person being shot is an exigent threat, then the the act of shooting is not murder, but self defense, and therefore not an intrinsic evil.

Likewise, with capital punishment, if the threat presented by the person being executed containable by some alternative means such as incarceration, the act of execution is an intrinsic evil. This sort of execution is a murder, not an act of self defense. Contrarily, if the person being executed can be contained by no other means (a practical impossibility today, as John Paul II has told us), then the execution is not an intrinsic evil.

This is highly complex, and I understand Scott’s confusion of the subject. However, Scott is clearly in error. Because today the alternative form of punishment of incarceration is available to defend society, all executions today fall into the first category of capital punishment, the intrinsically evil kind. Therefore capital punishment, for all practical purposes, is an intrinsic evil.

It is clear by way of analogy to murder/self defense, that capital punishment is analogous to killing, and capital punishment with alternative, or what we might call gratuitous capital punishment is an intrinsic evil, analogous to murder.

Scott is not the one who is confused, it is you. You presented the correct definition of intrinsic evil, and then you ignored it in your explanation. Capital punishment is not intrinsic evil. It serves the purpose of self defense for a society, but that is not is its only purpose. Punishments of all kinds are supposed to serve the interests of justice also. For a crime as serious as murder to be punished with the same sentence as stealing a car fails to satisfy a need for justice. For a murderer already serving a life sentece for murder to receive no further punishment for the murder of a prison guard is a deprivation of justice.

Capital punishment does not become intrinsically evil because you think that a lesser punishment will protect society. To execute a person known to be innocent is not a just punishment, but actually is murder–and that is intrinsically evil as you quoted in the catechism. Sadly that has happened many times before as in the cases of Thomas More, Joan of Arc, Maximilian Kolbe, and Jesus. None of them protested that capital punishment was intrinsically evil because it is not.

 

[Soulstorm]

An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.

Think of it this way. Let’s say a woman is injured permenantly, and has acid thrown in her face. Should it be fair to throw acid in the face of the perpetrator?

This kind of caveman justice is not fair. You’re not being a bigger and better person by fighting fire with fire. We should rise above it, not become as bad as them.

Rise above it? By paying for the shelter and food of in this case possibly an attempted murderer? While its true that some murderers see the light and error of their actions (heck we have multiple Saints who are murderers) the majority when interviewed seem to only be sorry that they got caught and will only shed crocodile tears to the camera saying their sorry for taking away a loved one from some family.

Also since you described “An eye for an eye” with the insult of caveman justice, I must ask again. Don’t you find it blasphemous to consider the method of justice the Hebrews were given by God to be immoral and barbaric?

 

[LemonAndLime]

Rise above it? By paying for the shelter and food of in this case possibly an attempted murderer? While its true that some murderers see the light and error of their actions (heck we have multiple Saints who are murderers) the majority when interviewed seem to only be sorry that they got caught and will only shed crocodile tears to the camera saying their sorry for taking away a loved one from some family.

Also since you described “An eye for an eye” with the insult of caveman justice, I must ask again. Don’t you find it blasphemous to consider the method of justice the Hebrews were given by God to be immoral and barbaric?

Nope I don’t find it blasphemous. You could say the Pope is being blasphemous using the same logic by being against the death penalty in principle.

I stand by what I said. It’s caveman justice. I punch you, you punch me. I stab you, you stab me. I would find it much more satisfying to know that a murderer of a friend/relative of mine was trapped in a cell for the rest of their life than being killed and having an easy end to it.

If death is an acceptable payment, why is that people are outraged if someone kills themself while on death row? The pure motive is revenge, not punishment.

 

[Soulstorm]

Nope I don’t find it blasphemous. You could say the Pope is being blasphemous using the same logic by being against the death penalty in principle.

Fair enough

I stand by what I said. It’s caveman justice. I punch you, you punch me. I stab you, you stab me. I would find it much more satisfying to know that a murderer of a friend/relative of mine was trapped in a cell for the rest of their life than being killed and having an easy end to it.

If death is an acceptable payment, why is that people are outraged if someone kills themself while on death row? The pure motive is revenge, not punishment.

If someone is upset that a prisoner committed suicide who was bound to die anyways then yes I would say they only cared for the revenge. Of course obviously that is not the case in every case that ends in death row.

I would like to ask though, how do you feel about murderers who are not given life sentences and instead a sentence of 20-30 years?

 

[rlg94086]

I would find it much more satisfying to know that a murderer of a friend/relative of mine was trapped in a cell for the rest of their life than being killed and having an easy end to it.

If death is an acceptable payment, why is that people are outraged if someone kills themself while on death row? The pure motive is revenge, not punishment.

So, you’d be okay with a life sentence in solitary confinement?

 

[LemonAndLime]

If someone is upset that a prisoner committed suicide who was bound to die anyways then yes I would say they only cared for the revenge. Of course obviously that is not the case in every case that ends in death row.

I would like to ask though, how do you feel about murderers who are not given life sentences and instead a sentence of 20-30 years?

People do tend to be upset if a murderer commited suicide either when in jail or before sentencing. You can sense it in the newspapers/online, even if they weren’t on death row. A child murderer in the UK tried to kill himself in jail and people were outraged.

It would depend on the murder. Things like child murders should definately get the higher sentence, and that’s what happens. If for example someone who was being regularly beaten by their spouse murders them in a fight, they should have a lesser sentence as there’s mitigating factors. 20 years seems a bit low, but 30 I think is a long time for a murder.