Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

There are not two different sorts of justice. There is only the perfect Justice of God. Man’s attempt to live up to God’s justice is always doomed to imperfection.

It is absurd to use Ananias as a justification for the use of the death penalty among human beings. It is simply and patently a faulty argument.

I think it is somethng worth considering, as all Chirstians do, when the see what the Holy Ghost did and what it means.

Just as:

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same commands from God, in the same circumstance, from the OT.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important. This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something contrary to support for execution.

 

[Ender]

There are not two different sorts of justice. There is only the perfect Justice of God. Man’s attempt to live up to God’s justice is always doomed to imperfection.

Man’s attempts to behave justly may be doomed to imperfection but that is no reason not to make the attempt. Given that justice is one of the cardinal virtues, surely we are required to behave as justly as we are able. Justice obliges the State to impose punishment on criminals and further requires that the severity of that punishment be commensurate with the severity of the offense.

Ender

 

[Joe_Hill]

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

Which is followed by the words in Mark 7:11

Our Lord was pointing out the very confusion between God’s justice and the traditions of men.

He was rebuking the hypocrisy of those who consider words removed from their context and bereft of the Spirit in which they were given.

I would, if I were you, trust in the guidance of the Church.

 

[chevalier]

No, you’ve got it 180 degrees backwards. I’m referring to convictions, which means offenders who have been tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and on top of that have had their convictions vetted exhaustively by state and federal appeals courts, parole boards, and governors’ offices (reviewing clemency petitions). In none of these death penalty cases has it been demonstrated that the “system” failed, i.e., that a factually innocent person was executed.

I was not suggesting that the guilty have to prove their innocence, I was challenging the faulty notion that the “system” is broken or that innocent people are being executed.

In reality, beyond reasonable doubt is as beyond it as the jury sees fit, as long as the judge doesn’t distort the instruction. Review seems to be focused on legal issues, mere facts and factual links not so much. When I read about some of the cases, I can’t stop wondering how on earth that factual theory obtained. BTW, reasonable doubt is the hardest thing to define in all of criminal law.

Man’s attempts to behave justly may be doomed to imperfection but that is no reason not to make the attempt. Given that justice is one of the cardinal virtues, surely we are required to behave as justly as we are able. Justice obliges the State to impose punishment on criminals and further requires that the severity of that punishment be commensurate with the severity of the offense.

Ender

But justice does not require the punishment to be equally barbarous or gory. We’ve already abolished mutilations, branding etc.

The “No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot” was the Holy Spirit’s decision for Ananias and his wife, Saphira.

Do you think He was wrong and should have, instead, come around to the pro life position?

God can’t err on any point of fact or law, nor is there an equal or higher judge.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

That answer hardly sounds like the statement you give below. I believe it refers to the fact that any authority was accountable to God and also, perhaps primarily, that God could foil any human intent.

 

[chevalier]

Where is the evidence that we can safely incarcerate the worst of criminals?

How many have escaped from death row? There’s probably a bigger count for high security prisons but still not overwhelming.

 

[pnewton]

How many have escaped from death row? There’s probably a bigger count for high security prisons but still not overwhelming.

Not many. It is a small population sample to begin with. But realize that escape is but one danger to consider.

 

[Joe_Hill]

But realize that escape is but one danger to consider.

Do you mean the danger the convict poses to the other prisoners and the guards?

 

[dudleysharp]

Which is followed by the words in Mark 7:11. Our Lord was pointing out the very confusion between God’s justice and the traditions of men. He was rebuking the hypocrisy of those who consider words removed from their context and bereft of the Spirit in which they were given. I would, if I were you, trust in the guidance of the Church.

The importance of my point is that Jesus used a well known point that His Father had, repeatedly, used in the OT.

The example Jesus used was that children who disrespected their parents should be executed.

He could have used any example to make His point, He used that one because He supports it and it is the Word of God, in the OT and the NT.

He didn’t pick an example that was not meaningful, He never did that, He only picked an OT text and brought it into the NT because of how important it is/was.

He selected that text as THE example of God’s Justice, to be THE example of that justice over the traditions of man, which undercut that justice.
’
That is why I used it.

 

[pnewton]

Do you mean the danger the convict poses to the other prisoners and the guards?

Yes, but more.

1. Possibility of escape, not very much of a threat
2. Conducting violence outside of prison through communication going to underlings, in some cases a huge dange
   3.Danger to guards
3. Prison violence.

 

[Joe_Hill]

Yes, but more.

1. Possibility of escape, not very much of a threat
2. Conducting violence outside of prison through communication going to underlings, in some cases a huge dange
   3.Danger to guards
3. Prison violence.

And do you think that these risks warrant the death penalty?

And do they also justify the occasional and inevitable miscarraige of justice which will condemn an innocent man or woman to death?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Yes, but more.

1. Possibility of escape, not very much of a threat
2. Conducting violence outside of prison through communication going to underlings, in some cases a huge dange
   3.Danger to guards
3. Prison violence.

Think of the jobs. More guards=more jobs.

But I still don’t think it is worth it when you consider the fact that our justice system isn’t always right. Better safe than sorry with human life.

 

[dudleysharp]

But I still don’t think it is worth it when you consider the fact that our justice system isn’t always right. Better safe than sorry with human life.

It isn’t always right in many respects.

Consider the reality that innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It isn’t always right in many respects.

Consider the reality that innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live

They don’t have to be. Good security and incarceration (if absolutely necessary) make sure citizens aren’t at risk. Plus, so much money is spent on the death penalty, and when it’s not even always right…

 

[pnewton]

And do you think that these risks warrant the death penalty?

And do they also justify the occasional and inevitable miscarraige of justice which will condemn an innocent man or woman to death?

Better safe than sorry with human life.

See, here I think is an area that we can really disagree with, the meat of the issue. Better safe than sorry when it comes to human life, but I give more weight in the matter to innocent life over the guilty, which is the root of self-defense. However, I totally respect the idea that views the loss of innocent life committed by prisoners serving life sentence in lieu of execution as an acceptably small loss. At least it recognizes the risk of keeping some people alive who have earned death, and still are a risk to others.

As far as people wrongly sentenced to death, of course we should never be satisfied with even one such occurrence and strive always to be sure in sentencing. However, I also would feel the same way about robbing some innocent of his freedom for the remainder of their life. i view that as a non-issue as our desire for justice and accuracy should be the same whether we take a life in execution, or take a life in prison.

 

[Joe_Hill]

See, here I think is an area that we can really disagree with, the meat of the issue. Better safe than sorry when it comes to human life, but I give more weight in the matter to innocent life over the guilty,

That’s just it. A wrongly convicted man is innocent.

However, I also would feel the same way about robbing some innocent of his freedom for the remainder of their life. i view that as a non-issue as our desire for justice and accuracy should be the same whether we take a life in execution, or take a life in prison.

Except that some correction (release, exoneration, compensation) can be made to the innocent wrongly convicted.

The dead stay dead unless the Lord wishes otherwise.

I find it very hard to understand people that express a distrust of big government but are willing to hand to the state the legal power to kill.

How unwilling would a governer be to admit that he signed the death warrant to the wrong person?

How unwilling would the detectives be to tell said governer?

 

[Ender]

I find it very hard to understand people that express a distrust of big government but are willing to hand to the state the legal power to kill.

You should at least recognize that it is the Church who proclaims that States have this right.

Ender

 

[Joe_Hill]

You should at least recognize that it is the Church who proclaims that States have this right.

Ender

Gospel of Life; papal encyclical of John Paul II

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence.”(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. 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.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: ‘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.’"

 

[pnewton]

That’s just it. A wrongly convicted man is innocent.

Except that some correction (release, exoneration, compensation) can be made to the innocent wrongly convicted.

No compensation can make up for robbing a many of years of freedom, and how would we make up for robbing him of a lifetime of freedom? I have always found this argument empty. No one is suggesting that we do anything except strive to insure that only the guilty are convicted. It is just as empty as accusing those who are against any death penalty of not caring about sending an innocent man to prison for life. Furthermore, it is overblown. The cases of this happening are “so rare as to be practically non-existent”.

Gospel of Life; papal encyclical of John Paul II

Rather than respond to this quote again, I will just point to earlier in the thread which dealt with this. No need to keep going over the same circle over and over and over and over and over again.

If you are truly interested in dialogue and not just presenting your views, you will find how this has been addressed. Sometimes reading over a thread is useful when jumping in, but I know that time often doesn’t permit it.

 

[Joe_Hill]

If you are truly interested in dialogue and not just presenting your views, you will find how this has been addressed.

It would help, if you could point to where:blush:

Sometimes reading over a thread is useful when jumping in, but I know that time often doesn’t permit it.

Yep, it gets hectic

As to your ealier pont, Indeed, imprisoning an innocent man is terrible. But it isn;t equally as bad as executing an innocent man. Just ask anyone which they would rather suffer and I am guessing that 99% will choose the former.

I guess where there is life there is hope.

Think Shawshank Redemption

I suppose that is what John Paul meant in his gospel of life

 

[pnewton]

It would help, if you could point to where:blush:

Evangelium Vitae was quoted in post 134 for one, but the discussion went on through the 400’s. To summarize, the issue revolves around the statement you highlighted, and whether that is a true premise or not. John Paul the Great, Pope Benedict XVI and no one has ever given one footnote, statistic, or, well, anything, to back up that premise. One would think that it is something no one ever thought of challenging, even though the whole application of the death penalty today hangs on what “today” actually is like.

One side note on innocent blood being shed, the Church has never let that possibility be a reason to disqualify the death penalty. For 1950 years the ability to determine guilt has been much more difficult, during which time the Church supported (and had) a death penalty. Again, we should always strive for true justice, even if it is but one person wrongly convicted, either sentenced to death or life.