Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

There are at least three ways that the death penalty is a greater defender of society than a life sentence.

1. “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

and then these:

1. Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
2. “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
   tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

The Church and the two most recent Popes have (unintetionally) chosen to sacrifice more innocent lives by their intent to dramatically limit executions based upon their inaccurate thesis that the secular security of prisons is so sound that execution are practically useless in defending society.

Such is, quite obviously, untrue.

Please review:

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

The Catechism and EV are, hereby, using the secular standard of penal security as a means to outweigh justice, balance, redress, reformation, expiation and prior Church teachings. 2267 cannot stand.

This is such a poorly considered prudential judgement as to negate its “prudential” moniker.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities. All of this is well known by all, with the apparent exception of the authors of the Catechism. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. The authors of the Catechism appear to have no grasp of reality? (4)

1. a) “Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

In 10/2003 , " . . . John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’ "

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

contd

b) “Hell in the heart of paradise”
“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”
4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP , tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-i…radise-3174543

c) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website, Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/…t_hood_muslims

UPDATE: “New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot”, foxnews.com/politics/2011…key-player-11/

UPDATE: al-Awlaki killed in a CIA drone strike - nor more a living threat.

d) " . . . Today’s prison inmates are willing to pay up to $10,000 for a smartphone that can allow them to run a drug ring, stalk their prey—and maybe even escape."

" . . . Parchman Mississippi State Penitentiary . . . shocked everyone when it blocked more than 216,000 texts and 600 phone calls in a (SINGLE MONTH) from within the prison walls."

In the first 9 months of 2011, California seized 11,400 cellphones from criminals behind bars.

"Smartphones Are the New Prison Contraband, Daily Beast, 10/16/11
thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/16/smartphones-in-prison-new-contraband-allows-inmates-to-make-money.htm

e) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqae…0924-g4no.html

f) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/securi…k_in_yemen.htm

g) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/…OLEwwD9CACTHG0

h) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11…ongoing-17934/

i) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
policeone.com/corrections…inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

j) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if she looked. It seems likely that hundreds or thousands of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again, in contradiction of the curious ignorance within EV and 2267.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip however, CP can be used with moral licitness in certain extenuating circumstances (such as a prisoner who kills other prisoners or prison guards, executing this person is done to protect society).

I think you are, wrongly, presuming that the two Popes and the CCC have correctly assesed secular prison systems, which they did not.

See my post no. 141 & 142, above.

 

[dudleysharp]

Capital punishment is always intrinsically evil when there is an alternative means of punishment which will protect society.

Again, that is not and cannot be the teachings, as the Church has always found the death penalty to be just and appropriate, regardless of alternate sanctions.

Egypt had incarceration of prisoners, as far back as 2000 BC, not to mention God provided alternate means of sanction, as alternatives to the death penalty, yet still the death penalty was found to be just.

 

[dudleysharp]

snipp 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.

Again, PJPII never said the death penalty was “intrisically evil”, not could he have.

There have been alternative means of sanction since Genesis, odd that such wasn’t made a reason to all but end the death penalty until 1995.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip Deterrence is not a valid consideration. snip.

Of course it is, the Church, as all of us, understands that deterrence based upon criminal sanction is and must be an important part of “a defense of society” consideration.

As the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over lesser sanction, it is, again, a mystery why the Church failed to take that into account, as they appeared to with all of the other considerations of the death penalty being a better defender of innocents, as reviewed within my post #141.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think you are, wrongly, presuming that the two Popes and the CCC have correctly assesed secular prison systems, which they did not.

See my post no. 141 & 142, above.

I haven’t presumed anything. What I stated was my opinion. If I am stating papal opinion or statements, I provide citations.

 

[dudleysharp]

snippbut there is no way you can compare capital punishment to the murder of an innocent person, which is intrinsically evil. Capital punishment is a form of justice taken out on a guilty person. It is morally equivalent to self defense. snip .

So correct.

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

“An ‘innocent’ person.”

2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

“An ‘innocent’ human being”

That is why it is so odd the Church and the recent 2 popes have chssen a course, with the death penalty, that puts more innocents at risk, as reviewed in my posts 141 & 142

 

[dudleysharp]

I haven’t presumed anything. What I stated was my opinion. If I am stating papal opinion or statements, I provide citations.

You are correct. My apology.

I think the opinion that you, the CCC and the recent 2 popes express is contrary to the facts, baased upon my 141 post.

 

[dudleysharp]

You are correct. My apology.

I think the opinion that you, the CCC and the recent 2 popes express is contrary to the facts, baased upon my 141 post.

Ugh, did it again.

It was not your opinion. My apologies, again.

 

[stanczyk]

Of course it is, the Church, as all of us, understands that deterrence based upon criminal sanction is and must be an important part of “a defense of society” consideration.
As the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over lesser sanction, it is, again, a mystery why the Church failed to take that into account, as they appeared to with all of the other considerations of the death penalty being a better defender of innocents, as reviewed within my post #141.

Not at all, and I would suggest that you appear to be misreading the Catechism. The “defense of society” consideration deals specifically with the danger presented by the convict in question. There is no such thing as necessary capital punishment when there is an alternative means of keeping such a convict from harming others, it must be used. The question is one of practical means. Deterence simply does not enter into the equation: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” You might do well to read Evangelium Vitae, which is available online here:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Best of luck to you in your question to better understand the true teachings of the true Church. God bless!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You are correct. My apology.

I think the opinion that you, the CCC and the recent 2 popes express is contrary to the facts, baased upon my 141 post.

I am not necessarily against the death penalty, however, I think it should be used more sparingly than it is. I am, for instance, against executing someone who has committed a murder but poses no further threat to anyone. For example, a man who plans and brutally kills his wife, for instance, regardless of this mitigating factors. For those who there is a plausible ongoing threat to society because of their continued life, then they should be dispatched with the quickness.

 

[dudleysharp]

nip The “defense of society” consideration deals specifically with the danger presented by the convict in question. There is no such thing as necessary capital punishment when there is an alternative means of keeping such a convict from harming others, it must be used. The question is one of practical means. Deterence simply does not enter into the equation: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” You might do well to read Evangelium Vitae, which is available online here:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Best of luck to you in your question to better understand the true teachings of the true Church. God bless!

Again, you are, factualy in error on all points.

Deterrence is real, therefore The “defense of society” does deal specifically with the danger presented by each and every criminal.

The Church has spoken up, repeatedly, about the protection of innocents, therefore that is always (name removed by moderator)ortant to the Chrch and the death penalty is a great protector of innocents than lesser sanctions, via deterrence and other means.

There is also this problem with the “Bloodless means”:

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity.

With Numbers 35:31 there is: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.”

Deserves as in justice, retribution.

When it comes to commensurate or proportional sanctions, of course we can disagree on what that may mean, prudentially. However, with murder and its proper sanction, I think we are instructed with Genesis, Numbers and traditional Church teachings that the proper sanction for murder is death.

In addition, had EV been properly thought through, it would have concluded that innocents were better protected with the death penalty and, therefore, it is a greater defender of society and, as such EV would have not created the errors which were then wrongly put into the Catechism.

My review of EV:

Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty
homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx

 

[CMatt25]

Its really very simple.

Capital Punishment is not INTRINSICALLY EVIL and thus is permissible in certain situations. The pope is merely reiterating his belief that those “certain situations” don’t really exist anymore

I wonder if Church teaching will be changed to reflect the Pope’s belief and those rare situations removed from the catechism.

 

[estesbob]

I wonder if Church teaching will be changed to reflect the Pope’s belief and those rare situations removed from the catechism.

No.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I wonder if Church teaching will be changed to reflect the Pope’s belief and those rare situations removed from the catechism.

No. Capital Punishment will never be declared intrinsically evil. The Church does not change her doctrine, only refines it. Since it has advocated CP in the past, to do a 180 degree reversal would call the entire corpus of Catholic Doctrine into question. To be intrinsically evil, it has to ALWAYS be evil, regardless of circumstance or chronology. The passage of time notwithstanding, the state has a right to execute those whom it deems fit as a method of protecting society from harm and as a form of justice. I think that the Pope is right in that states must be much more cautious and judicious with the application of CP, but it will never get to the point where it will claim that CP is always wrong.

 

[TMC]

Discussing whether the death penalty is “intrinsically” evil is a bit of a semantic circle. Unjustified killing is intrinsically evil, so when the death penalty is not justified its use is evil. So the question is whether and when the death penatly is jusitified killing. Church teaching is clear – only when it is the only way to protect society. There can be some reasonable disagreement over when capital punishment is the only way to protect society. The Pope (and I would suggest most people) believe the answer is never for advanced countries, and very rarely for others. Catholics are free to disagree, but I frankly don’t see the counter-argument. What Catholics are not free to do is to advocate the death penalty for other purposes - e.g. for deterrence value, for vengence or for “justice”.

 

[ringil]

I wonder if Church teaching will be changed to reflect the Pope’s belief and those rare situations removed from the catechism.

I doubt this seriously. Like Newenglandpriest said earlier, the death penalty is kind of the macro level version of the personal right to defend yourself and your family even if that may mean using deadly means.

Theoretically, there MAY be situations where a state needs to employ Capital Punishment. I can think, MAYBE of a situation in a developing nation without sufficient means to absolutely and totally confine a murderer aren’t there.

For those who feel that we (US) and other developed nations cannot do this (ensure the public’s safety) I would invite you to look into the Russian supermax prisons and especially one called “Black Dolphin”- the most secure facility in Russia, and perhaps the world. I saw this prison profiled on TV and these prisoners are SO controlled that there is ZERO crime in the prison, ZERO gangs in the prison, and ZERO communication between the prisoners. No guards have ever been injured there. Any time a prisoner is moved from their cell they are accompanied by four armed officers. THey are kept in a “stress position” as they walk, and an attack dog is constantly barking and growling in their face- it’s pretty striking.

I would love to see this kind of design incorporated in some prisons in the US because although I am very against the death penalty I am VERY FOR the most stern treatment of murderers and rapists in prison.

I believe in rehabilitation for most criminals but I could care less for how some of these terrible people are treated. If they have food to eat and water to drink and a bed of sorts then I’m fine with it.

 

[stanczyk]

Discussing whether the death penalty is “intrinsically” evil is a bit of a semantic circle. Unjustified killing is intrinsically evil, so when the death penalty is not justified its use is evil. So the question is whether and when the death penatly is jusitified killing. Church teaching is clear – only when it is the only way to protect society. There can be some reasonable disagreement over when capital punishment is the only way to protect society. The Pope (and I would suggest most people) believe the answer is never for advanced countries, and very rarely for others. Catholics are free to disagree, but I frankly don’t see the counter-argument. What Catholics are not free to do is to advocate the death penalty for other purposes - e.g. for deterrence value, for vengence or for “justice”.

Well said! Hear, hear!

 

[rlg94086]

Discussing whether the death penalty is “intrinsically” evil is a bit of a semantic circle. Unjustified killing is intrinsically evil, so when the death penalty is not justified its use is evil. So the question is whether and when the death penatly is jusitified killing. Church teaching is clear – only when it is the only way to protect society. There can be some reasonable disagreement over when capital punishment is the only way to protect society. The Pope (and I would suggest most people) believe the answer is never for advanced countries, and very rarely for others. Catholics are free to disagree, but I frankly don’t see the counter-argument. What Catholics are not free to do is to advocate the death penalty for other purposes - e.g. for deterrence value, for vengence or for “justice”.

Cool. Then, the other poster can drop the semantic arguement and just represent the Pope’s statements, which I agree with. Arguing that something is intrinsically evil when it’s not just weakens the arguement.