Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[dudleysharp]

There are multiple cases of people being convicted that … it turns out later (dna, new evidence etc…) … did not commit any crime.

Yes, there are.

However, there is a lot of deception from the anti death penalty side.

The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are both blatant and legendary. Some examples:

1. “The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx
2. The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
3. “Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. March”, by Ward Campbell, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, p 49, The Journal of the
   Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice, Issue 2, Summer 2008,
   cjlf.org/files/CampbellExonerationInflation2008.pdf
4. “The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation”, reports By United States Congress, Senate, 107th Congress, 2d Session, Calender no 731, Report 107-315. The Innocence Protection Act of 2002, (iv) The innocence tactic: Unreliable studies and disinformation, p 65-69, alturl.com/6j7oc
5. “The Innocent and the Shammed”, Joshua Marquis, Published in New York Times, 1/26/2006
   coastda.blogspot.com/2006/01/innocent-and-shammed-nyt-oped.html
6. “Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti death penalty lobby”, prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2011/11/troy-davis-innocent-frauds-of-anti.html
7. “The Myth Of Innocence”, Joshua Marquis, published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology - 3/31/2005, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois
   joshmarquis.blogspot.com/2005/03/myth-of-innocence.html
8. Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx
9. “At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
   homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

 

[Trader]

There are multiple cases of people being convicted that … it turns out later (dna, new evidence etc…) … did not commit any crime.

Have you heard anyone here argue for the execution of innocent people? Consider the very first sentence of 2267: **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility **have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Innocent people have been executed throughout history, but many of them were known to be innocent by the executioners beforehand. I am sure you will recognize a lot of them, like for instance, Thomas More, Joan of Arc, Maximilian Kolbe, and Jesus. None of them argued that the death penalty was not a legitmate option for someone guilty of murder. The execution of someone known to be innocent is murder, and could be justly punished by the death penalty. Even today states like California make it possible to execute the person whose perjury results in the wrongful execution of another person. The came out in the OJ Simpson trial.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip Indeed, it may be pointless here, as we are unlikely to change anyone’s mind, but it is allowable.

Hey, I changed my mind. It happens, rarely.

 

[Dranu]

Hey, I changed my mind. It happens, rarely.

As did I actually (in the same direction as yourself). The fact of the recent Popes taking such a position and some of the factors that lead me, however, causes no end of anxiety to me even if it does, on preponderance anyhow, seem to be prudential.

So yes, arguments can be useful.

 

[stanczyk]

The mistaken execution of innocent people is a red herring in this debate. It really doesn’t matter from a Catechismal perspective, as the Catechism presumes a functional judicial system in the cases where the death penalty is morally permissible. Those rare instances where the justice system breaks down and an innocent person is punished are the exception in our system, and it is just silly for the anti-death penalty advocates to hang their hat on human error. There will always be human error, and the perpetual presence of human error does not negate the moral permissibility of a functional justice system, whether it’s the death penalty or otherwise.

What matters to this debate is simply whether or not there is another option besides the death penalty to accomplish the goal of protection of society. Human error does not enter into the equation. Nor does retribution. Though one of the goals of justice is retributive, the moral permissibility of the death penalty hinges on the protective goal of justice. If the goal of protection of society can be met by another means besides death, then the death penalty is not an option whatsoever. It is morally illegitimate to apply the death penalty when effective means of lifetime incarceration exist, as they do today.

This is why the Blessed John Paul II warned that legitimate use of the death penalty in modern society is practically nonexistent, and why his wisdom adopted into the Catechism. The words mean what they mean, there is no way around them. The sanctity of life is paramount.

I am still praying that Catholics will soften their hearts, read Evangelium Vitae, pray, and come around to the pro-life side of this debate.

 

[Ender]

The mistaken execution of innocent people is a red herring in this debate. It really doesn’t matter from a Catechismal perspective, as the Catechism presumes a functional judicial system in the cases where the death penalty is morally permissible.

Well I do agree with this…

What matters to this debate is simply whether or not there is another option besides the death penalty to accomplish the goal of protection of society. Human error does not enter into the equation. Nor does retribution. Though one of the goals of justice is retributive, the moral permissibility of the death penalty hinges on the protective goal of justice. If the goal of protection of society can be met by another means besides death, then the death penalty is not an option whatsoever. It is morally illegitimate to apply the death penalty when effective means of lifetime incarceration exist, as they do today.

… but not this. This is where the argument comes off the rails. Retribution is not merely one objective (of punishment, not justice) among several, it is the primary objective so there is no meaningful way to say that retribution (which is needed to satisfy the demand of justice) does not enter the equation. It is retribution alone that places limits on punishment, determining what is too much and what is too little. If it was true that protection alone justified punishment then even minor offenses could be harshly punished - so long as the objective was attained the punishment would be justified. Clearly we don’t believe that and neither should we believe that protection determines the extent of punishment.

I am still praying that Catholics will soften their hearts, read Evangelium Vitae, pray, and come around to the pro-life side of this debate.

And I am hoping that Catholics will harden their heads by reading even a fraction of what the Church wrote on this subject over two millennia, and come around to the pro-life side of this debate.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

.And I am hoping that Catholics will…come around to the pro-life side of this debate.

You have a unique view of of what constitutes a pro-life position - adding to the number of deaths surrounding a crime is not IMO considered pro-life - just ask the folks who campaign against abortion.

 

[Ender]

You have a unique view of of what constitutes a pro-life position - adding to the number of deaths surrounding a crime is not IMO considered pro-life - just ask the folks who campaign against abortion.

I was challenging the automatic and thought-less presumption that the issue is clearly drawn between those who are pro-life and those who aren’t. It is no more valid to make this claim regarding capital punishment than it would be to include only pacifists in the pro-life camp and exclude soldiers. The statement is closer to insult than to argument.

Ender

 

[Swiss_Guy]

And I am hoping that Catholics will harden their heads by reading even a fraction of what the Church wrote on this subject over two millennia, and come around to the pro-life side of this debate.

Ender

I’ll quickly come back to this thread.

The death penalty is ok as a last resort. But over the last century or two, society has changed so we don’t need to use the death penalty anymore. I find it similar to charging interest; it was considered usury, but as money changed what constituted usury changed as well, because charging interest didn’t necessarily become usury anymore.

Now I’m gonna go away again. I don’t feel like discussing this.

 

[pnewton]

I am still praying that Catholics will soften their hearts, read Evangelium Vitae, pray, and come around to the pro-life side of this debate.

Three points: a soft heart is not the issue, as a person with a hard heart can believe we do not need a death penalty and a person with a soft heart might think it is still needed. Second, I have read Evangelium Vitae, studied it is more like it. Third, my position is rooted in the value of every human life.

I think the phrase “practically nonexistent” can introduce a new facet to the debate, when taken literally. Namely, that while we know some application of the death penalty is still needed, its rarity is such that in practice we are better off without any application of the death penalty. It is not my position, at least yet, but it is a good one.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll quickly come back to this thread.

The death penalty is ok as a last resort. But over the last century or two, society has changed so we don’t need to use the death penalty anymore. I find it similar to charging interest; it was considered usury, but as money changed what constituted usury changed as well, because charging interest didn’t necessarily become usury anymore.

That is a good analogy. Then in this case, the argument is over whether the nature of lending has changed enough to change the way doctrine is applied. In usury, I think we all agree. With the nature of murder, we have more widely ranged opinions.

 

[stanczyk]

I’ll quickly come back to this thread.

The death penalty is ok as a last resort. But over the last century or two, society has changed so we don’t need to use the death penalty anymore. I find it similar to charging interest; it was considered usury, but as money changed what constituted usury changed as well, because charging interest didn’t necessarily become usury anymore.

Now I’m gonna go away again. I don’t feel like discussing this.

Bad analogy. Usury is still every bit as sinful today as it ever was, and that applies to charging any interest rate on a loan, even a small rate.

If society changed, making it harder and harder to avoid usury, this might mean that the nature of the sin of money lending at interest is venial rather than mortal, typically. But even still, that may be a stretch, particularly if one is aware of the Church’s teaching on money-lending at interest. The bottom line is that lending money at interest is a sin.

See:

CCC 2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. **Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.**71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

CCC 2449 Beginning with the Old Testament, all kinds of juridical measures (the jubilee year of forgiveness of debts,** prohibition of loans at interest** and the keeping of collateral, the obligation to tithe, the daily payment of the day-laborer, the right to glean vines and fields) answer the exhortation of Deuteronomy: "For the poor will never cease out of the land; therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor in the land.’"249 Jesus makes these words his own: "The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."250 In so doing he does not soften the vehemence of former oracles against “buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals . . .,” but invites us to recognize his own presence in the poor who are his brethren:251

When her mother reproached her for caring for the poor and the sick at home, St. Rose of Lima said to her: "When we serve the poor and the sick, we serve Jesus. We must not fail to help our neighbors, because in them we serve Jesus.

One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully
Benedict XIV, Vix pervenit

The sin of usury hasn’t changed, nor has the sin of murder, nor have the permissible usages of capital punishment. But, as the Blessed John Paul II tells us in Evangelium Vitae, the change in society has rendered the permissible usage of capital punishment nonexistent in practice.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is ok as a last resort. But over the last century or two, society has changed so we don’t need to use the death penalty anymore.

I disagree with this assertion for several reasons, not least of which is the assumption that previous societies were incapable of securely incarcerating prisoners. Where is the evidence for this? If anything, it would seem that the reverse is true. How many people would you imagine ever escaped from Devil’s Island or ordered a hit from a medieval dungeon?

The real problem, however, is the belief that if the death penalty is not needed for protection then it has no purpose at all. To believe this is to dismiss a number of Church teachings, principally that on retribution. The primary objective of punishment is and always has been retributive justice. Are we to believe we no longer have a need for justice? It is not possible to meaningfully discuss punishment generically or capital punishment in particular without also discussing retributive justice, something as carefully avoided on this forum as a basket of snakes.

Ender

 

[stanczyk]

I disagree with this assertion for several reasons, not least of which is the assumption that previous societies were incapable of securely incarcerating prisoners. Where is the evidence for this? If anything, it would seem that the reverse is true. How many people would you imagine ever escaped from Devil’s Island or ordered a hit from a medieval dungeon?

I will be happy to correct you here. You mentioned Devil’s Island and medieval dungeons as alternatives to capital punishment. In those cases, the incarceration was a fate worse than death. Ancient societies were capable of lifetime incarceration, but such prisons were exceedingly inhumane until only just recently.

Let’s not play lawyer here, there is no need to rationalize a philosophy of death. Christ’s is a philosophy of life. The pope and the Blessed John Paull II and the Catechism are very clear on this. Today, in modern society, the morally permissible usage of the death penalty is nonexistent in practice. It is really very simple.

Praying for you to come around to the pro-life side, Ender. God bless.

 

[stanczyk]

It is no more valid to make this claim regarding capital punishment than it would be to include only pacifists in the pro-life camp and exclude soldiers.

By the way, this is a false analogy. The Church has very clear teaching on just war, and a very clear teaching on the permissibility of the death penalty. Supporting a just war is permissible, and so is supporting permissible usage of capital punishment (i.e. for the protection of society in some time prior to modernity). However, the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae clearly demonstrate the practical nonexistence of permissible usage of the death penalty, meaning that any continued support for the death penalty is inherently anti-life, much like support for abortion or euthanasia.

So, I will continue to pray that you give up your circumlocutions and rationalizations and join us over on the pro-life side of this debate, Ender. There is, after all, no justice without life.

 

[Ender]

The Church has very clear teaching on just war, and a very clear teaching on the permissibility of the death penalty.

Yes she does - and here it is:

*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)

Supporting a just war is permissible, and so is supporting permissible usage of capital punishment (i.e. for the protection of society in some time prior to modernity).

This is incorrect. At no time prior to 1995 did the Church ever tie the use of capital punishment to the need for protection.

However, the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae clearly demonstrate the practical nonexistence of permissible usage of the death penalty, meaning that any continued support for the death penalty is inherently anti-life, much like support for abortion or euthanasia.

If this was true how are to understand Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinions on the use of capital punishment? There certainly cannot be any diversity of opinion on abortion or euthanasia as the cardinal explicitly noted; this comparison is invalid.

So, I will continue to pray that you give up your circumlocutions and rationalizations and join us over on the pro-life side of this debate

Is this how you deal with the writings of our popes prior to JPII, all the previous catechisms and councils, as well as the writings of the Early Fathers and nearly all of the Doctors of the Church? You dismiss them as circumlocutions? As for your comments about my not being pro-life, you should at least recognize that mere existence is not the goal of life. It is not temporal life but eternal life that should be our goal and in that regard you have no claim that your position is more pro-life than mine.

There is, after all, no justice without life.

This might sound impressive but it really has no meaning. It certainly isn’t anything the Church has ever taught.

Ender

 

[Dranu]

However, the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae clearly demonstrate the practical nonexistence of permissible usage of the death penalty, meaning that any continued support for the death penalty is inherently anti-life, much like support for abortion or euthanasia.

You would do well then to address the current Pope’s statements on the matter while he was Cardinal (who said something to the exact opposite of what you just said) and people like Cardinal Dulles who stated it was merely prudential. There is good reason to be unsure on CCC 2267. I am not saying either side is right, I am just saying it certainly is not as clear as you say, and if it is please demonstrate it. I also wonder how the moral theories of Probabilism and Equiprobabilism would come into play on this analysis.

 

[Dranu]

One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully
Benedict XIV, Vix pervenit

Though usury is a bit off topic, you might have a point when it comes to people unjustly profiteering off interest rates through unequal bargaining power, but this quote, for instance, could be answered by the fact that in many dealings with interest one gains nothing. This is because, as we have learned, the value of something lent increases or decreases with time. As such, just because you pay back a greater monetary amount than the visible transaction does not really mean you are indeed paying back more. For instance, if I lend you my car for four days, it is much greater a loan than giving it to you for an hour even though the visible handing over of the item is the same. We must account for the invisible worth that was also lent, and to be just it would be demanded back. Lending something for a longer period of time is a greater loan than lending it for a short time. Therefore it demands more in return. Therefore, it would seem some interest rates could not count as usury for some of them gain nothing. Some could be a just/equal bargain. Thus the quote could be right while charging interest might be justified at the same time.

 

[stanczyk]

Though usury is a bit off topic, you might have a point when it comes to people unjustly profiteering off interest rates through unequal bargaining power, but this quote, for instance, could be answered by the fact that in many dealings with interest one gains nothing. This is because, as we have learned, the value of something lent increases or decreases with time. As such, just because you pay back a greater monetary amount than the visible transaction does not really mean you are indeed paying back more. For instance, if I lend you my car for four days, it is much greater a loan than giving it to you for an hour even though the visible handing over of the item is the same. We must account for the invisible worth that was also lent, and to be just it would be demanded back. Lending something for a longer period of time is a greater loan than lending it for a short time. Therefore it demands more in return. Therefore, it would seem some interest rates could not count as usury for some of them gain nothing. Some could be a just/equal bargain. Thus the quote could be right while charging interest might be justified at the same time.

I was thinking of starting a thread on the topic of usury, because it is very much a tangent. Suffice it to say that, though you present an interesting argument, Dranu, I still disagree with your above post. But I don’t think we should continue the digression in this thread.

 

[stanczyk]

You would do well then to address the current Pope’s statements on the matter while he was Cardinal (who said something to the exact opposite of what you just said) and people like Cardinal Dulles who stated it was merely prudential. There is good reason to be unsure on CCC 2267. I am not saying either side is right, I am just saying it certainly is not as clear as you say, and if it is please demonstrate it. I also wonder how the moral theories of Probabilism and Equiprobabilism would come into play on this analysis.

I don’t see Cardinal Dulles’s calling it “prudential” undermines the clear meaning off CCC 2267, nor do I see then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who said something to the effect that Catholics may disagree on the death penalty, as being contradictory of the clear message that it is no longer practically permissible. When the death penalty is permissible, reasonable Catholics may disagree as to its implementation. But in modern society, it is for all practical purposes never permissible to use the death penalty since better alternatives to protect society are always available. This is all very clear when the matter is approach with objectivity and logic.