Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[Verbum_Caro]

I would say that there probably has been, the world is a big place and history goes back a long time. But nothing specific that I can think of, no.

I’m not exactly omniscient, so the fact that I’m unaware of it isn’t really very meaningful.

Ok, so let’s return to the hypothetical or possible case (“The Road Warrior”).

When would a prisoner be a threat?

(Just to recap – I’m asking these questions because the CCC seems to contemplate a case for the legitimate use of the Death Penalty, and it seems reasonable that we ought to be able to articulate what such a case would look like. . . either to recognize it or, as some would argue, to recognize how no such cases exist).

Thanks,
VC

 

[ringil]

**
My favorite popes in modern times have been John XXIII and Paul VI**. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been/are brilliant and capable and sincere. However, I fear that they have been loading the hierarchy with arch-conservatives who will keep the Church from even considering reforms that are important. I know that traditionalists applaud them and I admire much about them, but I am concerned about the direction of their leadership.

The Popes are neither Conservative nor Liberal in the sense of what we think of in the US.

I am certainly no conservative, and not a traditionalist either, but I very much love JPII and Benedict.

Actually, all of the Popes for the last two hundred years have been good and holy men who reigned during a specific time, bringing their gifts to the table.

Certainly each has made personal mistakes but that is human.

Both, of who we would call in the US, a “conservative” and “liberal” have high opinions of JPII and Benedict.

Check out their opinions on various matters and you will not find consistent political ideologies, but teaching drawn from prayer and from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[stanczyk]

Ok, so let’s return to the hypothetical or possible case (“The Road Warrior”).

When would a prisoner be a threat?

(Just to recap – I’m asking these questions because the CCC seems to contemplate a case for the legitimate use of the Death Penalty, and it seems reasonable that we ought to be able to articulate what such a case would look like. . . either to recognize it or, as some would argue, to recognize how no such cases exist).

Thanks,
VC

Well, it’s like I said earlier. I think it would look a lot like the legitimate use of self defense. There would need to be some sort of exigent threat presented by the prisoner, and there would have to be no alternative.

To use another movie reference, if we had a very dangerous prisoner, in a sort of Road Warrior collapsed society without the means for incarceration, it could very well be that the only way to contain that threat was with the death penalty. But I still find it hard to think of a situation where there is literally no alternative than death.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Well, it’s like I said earlier. I think it would look a lot like the legitimate use of self defense. There would need to be some sort of exigent threat presented by the prisoner, and there would have to be no alternative.

To use another movie reference, if we had a very dangerous prisoner, in a sort of Road Warrior collapsed society without the means for incarceration, it could very well be that the only way to contain that threat was with the death penalty. But I still find it hard to think of a situation where there is literally no alternative than death.

What does it mean to have a dangerous prisoner? Danger to whom? And what do you mean by exigent?

VC

 

[stanczyk]

What does it mean to have a dangerous prisoner? Danger to whom? And what do you mean by exigent?

VC

Dangerous to society.

Exigent threats are threats that are direct and immediate. It’s the standard used for determining the appropriateness of self defense.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Dangerous to society.

Can you describe how an incarcerated prisoner could be a danger to a larger society?

stanczyk:

Exigent threats are threats that are direct and immediate. It’s the standard used for determining the appropriateness of self defense.

Yes, I had that in mind as well. It is the same standard in law.

Wouldn’t that mean, then, that the death penalty under your view would only be administered for future crimes?

And furthermore, how do you integrate quote one with quote two? In what way can a incarcerated prisoner pose a immediate threat to larger society?

VC

 

[bbarrick8383]

nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/investigation_shows_gang_leade.html

They could, and probably have, call for hit’s on other people as well. Inside and out of prison.

 

[Langdell]

No, I agree the circumstances are rare. The phrase “if not” leads for one to believe either possibility.

Now the idea of practically non-existent is an interesting one to explore. That is, knowing that a few cases exist where the death penalty is the only means to keep society safe, are these cases so rare, that the best practice would be abolish the death penalty and allow those murders that are committed from behind bars to be acceptable losses? I have thought about this one myself. I do not know how to weigh innocent life against guilty life, nor will I attempt. The bottom line, is that life is of inestimable value and my opinion has always been shaped by a premium on life. It is one reason why I resent the rhetoric that tries to label any death penalty application as not wholly pro-life. Empty words do nothing but avoid deliberate and intelligent argument.

I understand. Thank you for taking the time to respond so fully.

 

[Ender]

It would be permissible when an alternative such as incarceration does not exist. This was the case in Biblical times, for example. But since we now have the means to effectively incarcerate even the most dangerous criminals, recourse to the death penalty is no longer permissible at all.

The idea that permanent incarceration is a new penal phenomenon is a fiction. People have been given life sentences since Roman times. In the old days they were chained to galley benches or worked in the mines instead of working out in a weight room, but the sentences were the same.

*Imprisonment as punishment is as old as human history. *(JPII, Jubilee in Prisons, 2000)

Ender

 

[Ender]

The question, again, is can someone give an example of when the death penalty is necessary?

I think Saddam Hussein is a good example of what you’re looking for but I also think you’re looking for the wrong thing. The death penalty is needed not because it provides protection but because it provides justice. That is, it is the just penalty for the crime of murder and since it is retribution and not protection that is the primary objective of all punishment, it is needed to satisfy the obligation of justice.

If we say that there is, never was, and never can be a case, then I’m a bit puzzled by this section of the Catechism.

As well you should be inasmuch as it is contrary to what the Church has always taught. If we assume that 2267 represents new doctrine then we have to accept that the Church taught error for nearly 2000 years. If we recognize that section as a prudential opinion opposing the use of capital punishment on practical grounds, however, then there is no doctrinal problem.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Why do so many Catholics here get so upset and form such denial when they realize we have the second pope in a row speaking out vehemently against the death penalty?? Is it because they feel guilty and are trying to justify supporting it when the most high earthly leader of their own Church is so against it?

You are surely right in pointing out that our last two popes are (were) personally opposed to capital punishment. What, though, are we to make of the fact that the previous 260+ popes were not? The Church has not been silent on this issue and did not suddenly address it for the first time in 1995. What are we to do with everything said prior to JPII? We may be able to discard faulty scientific theories but we don’t have that option with the doctrines of the Church. How do you deal with everything that was taught earlier which is very different than what is being propounded now?

Ender

 

[Ender]

You don’t have to ask me, thankfully, since the Catechism is so very clear on the matter.

You seem to have no appreciation at all for the problems with 2267, including the outright errors. The very first statement it makes in discussing the traditional teaching of the Church is simply mistaken. The Church never had the restriction on the use of capital punishment claimed in that section.

Punishment is not even a consideration, it is merely a question of whether an alternative besides death is available in order to defend society.

This shows just how far off track the discussion has gone. What is the primary objective of punishment? What justifies our punishing someone? Can we lock someone up to protect ourselves if he has not done something that justifies it? Believing that “punishment is not even a consideration” is to lose all comprehension of the relationship between sin and punishment and the nature of justice.

Ender

 

[ringil]

Black Dolphin is awesome and is evidence that prisoners can be effectively confined.

Do these guys look like they are obeying the rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Let’s open some of these over here for the worst of the worst. Prisoners can be contained and kept from endangering the public.

This is only a section of the complete video. ZERO escapes, ZERO gangs, ZERO violence on guards, ZERO danger to the public.

video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/national-geographic-channel/all-videos/av-10386-10586/ngc-black-dolphin-prison.html

 

[stanczyk]

Wouldn’t that mean, then, that the death penalty under your view would only be administered for future crimes?

In a sense, yes. That’s what the Catechism says. If a prisoner has been effectively neutralized by incarceration, then they are no longer a threat and no capital punishment is justified. Likewise, if they present some sort of threat to society while incarcerated then capital punishment is warranted under the CCC.

 

[ringil]

You seem to have no appreciation at all for the problems with 2267, including the outright errors. The very first statement it makes in discussing the traditional teaching of the Church is simply mistaken. The Church never had the restriction on the use of capital punishment claimed in that section.

Ender

There you go Ender. “Errors in the CCC”.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In a sense, yes. That’s what the Catechism says. If a prisoner has been effectively neutralized by incarceration, then they are no longer a threat and no capital punishment is justified. Likewise, if they present some sort of threat to society while incarcerated then capital punishment is warranted under the CCC.

But, to clarify, you mentioned that the threat had to be both direct and immediate.

Is your view that it would be licit to kill someone who has yet to do something wrong in order to prevent them from doing something wrong? At what point would that be allowed, temporally? Could you kill someone anticipating a crime a month from now? Or does “direct and immediate” mean that the death penalty could only be applied in the “heat of the moment” when a threat is manifesting itself.

If in the “heat of the moment” how does this relate to notions of due process? Also, in cases such as this who could lawfully “administer” this death? A guard? Another inmate?Or would there have to be someone present at the immediate threat who possesses color of authority?

Furthermore, can any incarcerated individual be a candidate for the death penalty if they now threaten society? I.e. Can a thief who, say, stole an atlatl be put to death because he now poses a threat (something new and distinct from his original crime of theft)?

Thanks again,
VC

 

[Roy5]

** We had a case recently tried here in the Northeast**. Two men invaded a home, commited rape, tortured, and then killed a mother and her two teenage daughters. The husband/father was badly beaten but miraculously escaped to the basement and survived.

** The two men were caught on the scene**, proof was positive, and the juries in both cases recommended capital punishment.

** Now, I oppose capital punishment in general.** in part because too many ended on death row and in the exceution chamber who were innocent. Howeverm as the husband and father (a devout Christian) said: “Some crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty.” I agree.

** If we could condemn the Nazi monsters to death at Nuremberg, why not these two monsters** who killed so deliberately and violently in a peaceful community here the USA? If we can justify sending bombers to kill tends of thousands in Hamburg and Dresden, Tokyo and Nagasaki in World War II, if we can be involved in the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis (plus, of course, our own young men and women in the military), why can’t we seek justice by ending the life of two such vicious evildoers who took the lives of three wonderful and innocent women?

  **Capital punishment must only be applied in those rare cases** where the proof is absolutely present and the motivations are depraved and inexcusable.

** For centuries the Church was involved in pushing capital punishment.** Aquinas went so far as to call for the execution of heretics, and how many thousands of them were murdered over the years? We know better now. Thank God the principles of democracy are well engrained in our society. This does not mean, however, that justice for vile and demonic killers should be denied. There is something totally unfair about those three women - two of them teenagers - cruelly tortured and deprived of their lives, and husband and grandparents and others caused such permanent and tragic grief, yet these two malicious men would be provided shelter, sustenance, health care and probably TV etc the rest of their lives! I doubt if their suffering begins to match that they have caused others, even thousands of us who have wept with the bereaved family. **The message **needs to be clear: kill in such a totally evil and unjustified way will mean you lose your life!

 

[Verbum_Caro]

There you go Ender. “Errors in the CCC”.

ringil,

Just as an aside, I’m not sure that it is unheard of (or unexpected) for a catechism to contain either errors, inaccuracies, or less than felicitous wording. Do you have a good argument to show that a catechism could not contain an error?

VC

 

[pnewton]

There you go Ender. “Errors in the CCC”.

Section 2267 does contain an application specifically to today based on an assumption of our current penological system. Can the Catechism be in error on something other than faith and morals, i.e., can we in fact incarcerate every criminal safely? I have struggled with this topic for fifteen years and still have no conclusion. I have, out of obedience to the catechism, limited my arguments to this narrow focus. At present, I am willing to say that I would work for an end to the death penalty by working to bring about the conditions assumed in 2267, namely strict and severe prisons that limit all contact and privileges to those who would otherwise be put to death, even if this means a forfeiture of most of their rights.

 

[Ender]

There you go Ender. “Errors in the CCC”.

In this case, yes, and you provide no argument that my claim is mistaken. Nor is this simply my personal opinion as it is shared by those one would expect to know.

*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome - 2007)

It would be a simple matter to prove me wrong; all it takes are some citations from the “traditional teaching” that section 2267 alludes to. Surely, if that is indeed the traditional teaching, someone ought to be able to point out the source of that tradition. In fact, however, no such writings are to be found because that restriction was never any part of Church doctrine.

Ender