Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[rlg94086]

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.

Well said.

 

[pnewton]

Having been over this argument many times, I see this as a weighing of choices. While life is of ultimate value, it is not the only value. We can not safely incarcerate the worst criminals now in the United States. I am of this opinion because of cases where murders have been committed from behind bars, within the bars and by escaped murderers. I think perhaps it is unrealistic to think we have to be at 100% safety to abolish the death penalty. I guess I would be willing to work for an abolition of the death penalty as long as the most dangerous convicts are deprived of all rights other than the right to life, so that prisons can safely keep them, as the Holy Father thinks is possible.

Most distressing to the general populace would have to be the level that some need to be cut off from all forms of communication with everyone else, outside of the officers that deal with them. For some, this needs to be 100%.

 

[stanczyk]

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.

I did drop the semantic argument, since I already won the semantic argument:thumbsup:

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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”.

TMC,

I agree with you regarding the question of “intrinsic evil” – it is semantic, in so far as we have to make distinctions about what “capital punishment” refers to. If you come out of the gate with the underlying proposition that, in this day and age, capital punishment is always unjustified killing, i.e. that it is an evil act, then, well you could call that kind of capital punishment intrinsically evil. Though, I think we ought to recognize that this isn’t the usual or common parlance. Those who wish to state that capital punishment is an “intrinsic evil” would need always to define their terms, make preliminary distinctions, etc. etc.

However, I tend toward disagreeing with the remainder of your post (for now) in which you state that a Catholic couldn’t advocate for the death penalty as a deterrent or for justice.

I say this because I don’t see why “protecting society” could not coexist along with deterrent effects. But more importantly I do not think that inflicting the death penalty to protect society is morally licit unless it be in addition to achieving the more primary aim of justice.

VC

 

[Javier_Sanchon]

Not sure why there is still so much debate about the morality of the death penalty. It has been clearly stated that the situations in which the state is morally justified to use the death penalty are rare, if not non-existent.

Yes, it is not an intrinsic evil such as abortion, but those who try to justify the use of the death penalty are not willing to see the truth behind the teachings of the Church. It takes spiritual maturity to agree with the Church, even when it means upsetting our political party. When there exists a conflict between God and Nation, it is a no-brainer who we must obey.

 

[sallybutler]

I have several problems with the death penalty.

However, these are probably the ones I feel the most strongly about.

1. The person may not have the chance to experience God’s forgiveness because they are executed before they have opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. In this way it is like abortion in that the state has stepped in and placed itself in the role of a god that decides who lives and dies.
2. The person who has to execute them – and it is a person that does this, not ‘the state’, has to deal with the consequences to their mental state and to the state of their soul.

 

[Javier_Sanchon]

I have several problems with the death penalty.

However, these are probably the ones I feel the most strongly about.

1. The person may not have the chance to experience God’s forgiveness because they are executed before they have opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. In this way it is like abortion in that the state has stepped in and placed itself in the role of a god that decides who lives and dies.
2. The person who has to execute them – and it is a person that does this, not ‘the state’, has to deal with the consequences to their mental state and to the state of their soul.

That is so true. There is definitely a connexion between all these issues in our Culture of Death. The consequences are also sadly similar. There are so many cases of soldiers and women who have abortions experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder that they end up taking their own precious lives.

That being said, it is still important to distinguish between intrinsic evils such as abortion, intentionally killing civilians (e.g. terrorism), torture, etc. and those evils that are grave such as the death penalty, war, and poverty.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So, who’s feet do we lay it on when a life-sentence prisoner (now that the death penalty is abolished…and there was much rejoicing) who also happens to be a militant Islamist converts fellow prisoners to the cause, they are released and blow up a shopping mall at Christmas, killing and wounding hundreds of innocent men, women, and children?

For some prisoners, the appropriate thing for the state to do is to execute them for the protection of society. Capital punishment will always have a proper place within a well-ordered society.

 

[stanczyk]

So, who’s feet do we lay it on when a life-sentence prisoner (now that the death penalty is abolished…and there was much rejoicing) who also happens to be a militant Islamist converts fellow prisoners to the cause, they are released and blow up a shopping mall at Christmas, killing and wounding hundreds of innocent men, women, and children?

For some prisoners, the appropriate thing for the state to do is to execute them for the protection of society. Capital punishment will always have a proper place within a well-ordered society.

The alternative in the case you describe is simply isolation of the prisoner. The death penalty is never necessary. The only time execuction would truly be necessary in defense of society, as envisioned by the Catechism, is if the alternative of incarceration simply was unavailable. This is not the case in any developed country, it is certainly not the case in America, no matter how dangerous the prisoner.

The death penalty has long been rendered unnecessary by incarceration. In modern, developed countries, there simply is no prisoner who cannot be effectively contained by means other than execution. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Blessed John Paul II and it is the position of the Church.

One could not make a more twisted contortion of Catholic teaching than to conclude that the death penalty will “always” have a place in society. This is patently false. John Paul’s words are clear, that morally licit executions are either exceedingly rare in modern society or “practically nonexistent.” Even if there were cases in a developed country where an execution might be morally necessary (there, in fact, are no such cases, but just hypothetically), it is still patently false to suggest that the death penalty will “always” be a part of society.

I will be saying a prayer tonight that Catholics who believe this sort of thing come around to understand the teaching of the Church on this issue and truly embrace life.

 

[stanczyk]

That being said, it is still important to distinguish between intrinsic evils such as abortion, intentionally killing civilians (e.g. terrorism), torture, etc. and those evils that are grave such as the death penalty, war, and poverty.

As a much wiser poster than I observed a few posts back, all illegitimate killing is intrinsically evil. This includes the gratuitous use of the death penalty. Therefore, any use of the death penalty in the United States is an intrinsic evil. It is important to be able to distinguish this.

 

[stanczyk]

It has been clearly stated that the situations in which the state is morally justified to use the death penalty are rare, if not non-existent.

Yes, it is not an intrinsic evil such as abortion, but those who try to justify the use of the death penalty are not willing to see the truth be

If used in any but those rare, if not non-existent, circumstances, then yes, the death penalty is an intrinsic evil.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

As a much wiser poster than I observed a few posts back, all illegitimate killing is intrinsically evil. This includes the gratuitous use of the death penalty. Therefore, any use of the death penalty in the United States is an intrinsic evil. It is important to be able to distinguish this.

When a convicted person in the United States is given full due process and is found guilty by a jury of his peers and is sentenced to die by that same jury, it is NOT illegitimate. It is, by its very definition, legitimate (within the law). You may consider it immoral, but the Church doesn’t. And since there have been leaks from even supermax prisons which have lead to the deaths of people outside the walls of the prison, what do you propose? Maybe we can build a penal colony on the moon, perhaps? I mean, no escaping there, and certainly no death orders coming from the moon. Maybe that’s the answer. We will build a penal colony on the moon.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If used in any but those rare, if not non-existent, circumstances, then yes, the death penalty is an intrinsic evil.

No. It is not. You are misusing the term and it is making you look rather silly.

 

[stanczyk]

No. It is not. You are misusing the term and it is making you look rather silly.

Scott, I understand how this could be confusing to you, it is a subtle and nuanced distinction. But the distinction has already been proven by me at length several pages ago. The short version is this: just as murder is intrinsically evil, while killing is not, the gratuitous use of the death penalty is an intrinsic evil (a murder, essentially), whereas the death penalty itself is not.

And there is no other sort of death penalty in existence today besides the gratuitous kind. So the only kind of death penalty in the modern world is the intrinsically evil kind (remember, once more, that just like the murderous kind of killing is intrinsically evil, the gratutous kind of capital punishment is intrinsically evil).

This is the reason why our holy father is calling for the total abolition of the death penalty.

 

[stanczyk]

When a convicted person in the United States is given full due process and is found guilty by a jury of his peers and is sentenced to die by that same jury, it is NOT illegitimate. It is, by its very definition, legitimate (within the law). You may consider it immoral, but the Church doesn’t.

You must not be familiar with the Church’s stance on the issue. As Pope Benedict said recently, "I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”

The sort of law you are repeatedly advocating, Scott, the gratuitous use of the death penalty, is out of step with the Church and an affront to life and human dignity. It’s a shame to see you rationalizing it away with specious arguments, particularly after these arguments have been debunked by me. I’ll be praying for people everywhere with opinions like this come to truly accept and embrace life, and reject any false rationalization for the death penalty.

The death penalty is simply not necessary in the modern world, and its use is therefore murder. Please, if you won’t listen to me, at least listen to our holy father, Scott.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, it is not an intrinsic evil such as abortion, but those who try to justify the use of the death penalty are not willing to see the truth behind the teachings of the Church.

The key phrase is “the teachings of the Catholic Church.” There are people on both sides of the debate that speak contrary to the Church. Likewise, there are people on both sides of the debate that hold to what the Church teaches.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I have several problems with the death penalty.

However, these are probably the ones I feel the most strongly about.

1. The person may not have the chance to experience God’s forgiveness because they are executed before they have opened their heart to the Holy Spirit. In this way it is like abortion in that the state has stepped in and placed itself in the role of a god that decides who lives and dies.
2. The person who has to execute them – and it is a person that does this, not ‘the state’, has to deal with the consequences to their mental state and to the state of their soul.

So, who’s feet do we lay it on when a life-sentence prisoner (now that the death penalty is abolished…and there was much rejoicing) who also happens to be a militant Islamist converts fellow prisoners to the cause, they are released and blow up a shopping mall at Christmas, killing and wounding hundreds of innocent men, women, and children?

For some prisoners, the appropriate thing for the state to do is to execute them for the protection of society. Capital punishment will always have a proper place within a well-ordered society.

Those are certainly good “what ifs”. Are there any examples?

I vaguely remember that Timothy McVeigh was a lapsed Catholic, but repented before his execution.

 

[pnewton]

The death penalty has long been rendered unnecessary by incarceration. In modern, developed countries, there simply is no prisoner who cannot be effectively contained by means other than execution. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of the Blessed John Paul II and it is the position of the Church.

It is an opinion, not a teaching. The Church does not take positions outside the areas of faith and morals.

 

[pnewton]

No. It is not. You are misusing the term and it is making you look rather silly.

You noticed that, did you. If the circumstances determine the evil, then the evil is not, by definition, intrinsic. If any qualify makes a moral change, then we are not speaking of an intrinsic evil.

 

[stanczyk]

It is an opinion, not a teaching. The Church does not take positions outside the areas of faith and morals.

The teaching is that if the death penalty is not necessary for the defense of society or an alternative is available, it is a murder, no different than an abortion.

The opinion of the Blessed John Paul and Benedict both share is that the circumstances are such that the death penalty is no longer necessary, that incarceration is always an alternative to achieve the protection of society, and therefore the death penalty is never warranted. Whether or not this is so is a question of fact. I am inclined to agree with the Pope’s and the Blessed John Paul’s opinions on this question of fact.

The alternative is to stubbornly cling to outmoded anti-life views on the death penalty, and to furious search for any rationalization that the death penalty might still be necessary. In reality, the pro-life Catholic should have the other point of view, instead of looking for extreme cases where the death penalty might be warranted, the pro-life Catholic should realize that there are incarceration solutions that can meet the goal of protection of society, and the death penalty can truly never be justified under any modern circumstances.