Question about the death penalty

[SpiritMeadow]

Crass? What other practical experience or detail scholarly involvement are you aware of him having on the subject? I’m giving him credit for having at least set foot in a modern prison more than once, which is further than most of those producing the sound bytes have done. As pnewton has pointed out, those within the heirarchy making these techincal determinations have been more than circumspect as far as what they are basing their claims on from a factual / scientific standpoint.

But I take it you have made no formal inquries to see if the Magisterium agrees that the Pope was without practical knowledge to make such a statement? And the same for Benedict’s indorsement of the the UN proposal? I would assume that you being in possession of documents that prove the pope is wrong in his assessment of how prisons actually work, have sent that material to the Vatican. They could of course acquire it in no other way, it seems.

Yes, I was aware you thought so when you told someone with 20+ years of direct corrections experience that he needed to learn what “maximum security” meant while summarily dismissed the current status of the scholarly outlook on many of the issues surrounding how to safely and perpetually contain the incorrigibles under the limitations of mandated allowances for freedoms on their part based on human rights decisions. However, someone who tunes out both practical experience and scholarly consensus on a subject more often than not winds up with very flawed ideas on the subject.

I am not a corrections officer and I undoubtedly know a good deal less than they do, but when someone makes a statement that we are retaining it to protect the public, I must assume one is not aware of what a maximum security system looks like and how it operates. I have been in such facilities. What it suggests is that the statement was made without due regard for the real facts. I corrected that statement. As it turns out, the poster full well knew the truth but had failed to state it IMO. So of course your attempt to denigrate my knowledge is incorrect.

I do think that, as the Church itself agrees is the case with all purely scientific or technical determinations, that those in scholarly studies of practical criminal justice issues combined those in management positions where those studies are applied are in the authoritative position to make determinations about their field. There is no declared special exception to recast as a matter of faith and morals the purely technical/scientific part of a determination of what capabilities of prison systems as currently implemented and what might be accomplished without bankrupting the governments responsible for maintaining them.

Again, can you advise us of your attempts to confirm your correct conclusions with the Vatican?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

We are pointing out that they are simply not adderssing certain points of Catholic teaching that we must presume is still in force. Failing to mention the state’s obligation to avenge crime one way or the other does not revoke it by default, and it is clear they know that as well I do.

That addresses only part of what I raised. And of course you do not address the real issue at all…the propensity here by some to have their own interpretation and pass that as Catholic teaching even when it is shown in dispute of actually statements to the contrary. It’s not that I object to the personal interpretation,but the failure to designate it as such.

First, you are the one that keeps expanding the targeted criticisms into claims other are making blanket accusations of heresy, those misrepresentations by you were challenged, and you elected to not address the challenges at all but have merely repeated the charge.

You’re just evading the question. I agree the subject is a bit off thread, you could have just said that and been done with it. Instead you try to turn the tables and just accuse. I can spend hours of course and can produce all those challenges. They are from various threads on this forum. You can’t expect me to believe you are unaware of the threads, since I’ve seen you on them.

Second, the claim was that documents produced by the USCCB committees were not binding. It is you that keeps exaggerating what was actually pointed out to try to make a straw man out of it, and are continuing to do so even after prior attempts at correction.

You are the one who said it was not binding. But of course if the USCCB should say something you liked, you would of course be arguing that we should all obey our bishops. That is the point to me. It’s your own brand of cafeteria shopping. To hide behind some “well its not binding on us” is avoidance and not an answer. Just say they are in the same error as the vatican apparently is.

Third, it is a matter of verifiable fact that the Divine Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith ordered the USCCB’s Jewish relations working group (not the USCCB as a whole) to retract a document that made a clearly heretical claim. Further, that was only brought up by me in the first place as a counterpoint to illustrated that the Vatican did actually step in when actual heresy was put forth to counter your claim that I was effectively saying that the USCCB’s confusing language about the DP constituted heresy (something I never actually did) and laughing at the straw man you created by pointing out that if it was heresy the Vatican would have intervened (but, again, I never said it was heresy, that was your straw man argument).

Mostly the USCCB was called heretical by another poster on another thread. The fact that the USCCB was told once to retract something is hardly evidence that they have been wrong for 25 years without correction for their stance on the DP. I point out only that again, when it says what you wish, you point to it as authority and would condemn anyone who did not follow it as not “following church teaching”. I simply point out as well that church teaching is really more what I think church teaching is rather than what it may necessarily be, but most people claim it as their own and correct. It is almost always personal interpretation. I merely tweak those that have called me names for not agreeing with the Vatican on this or that by doing the same thing. I see you do not like it one bit better than I do.

This parading of 'strawman" is the last resort of the person who doesnt want to be bothered or cant answer a question. It is the constant ploy used here as a 'debate" tool. It is seldom correctly introduced.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You are the one who said it was not binding.

Since you have chosen to repeat the claim even after my express denial, where, exactly, did I say that the USCCB “was not binding” on matters within its competence when it made declarations as a body? You’d made a reference to the clear anti-DP import of things various subcommittees and working groups had released - but were not actually endorsed by the bishops as a body. I pointed out that those sub-groups had no authority and had a recent history of endorsing things that required skepticism, especially when they conflicted with rather recent direct statements from Rome (and in the grand scheme, 1952 is still recent).

The fact that the USCCB was told once to retract something is hardly evidence that they have been wrong for 25 years without correction for their stance on the DP. I point out only that again, when it says what you wish, you point to it as authority and would condemn anyone who did not follow it as not “following church teaching”.

And I will point out, again, that I have consistently agreed that the position the USCCB endorsed as body is actually allowed under Church teaching, and therefore there is no pressing need for “correction”. I believe you have confused yourself; in your limitation of what you think is allowable to just one position you are apparently presuming that anyone who disagrees with you also thinks one conflicting position is allowed, but that is not the case.

I merely tweak those that have called me names for not agreeing with the Vatican on this or that by doing the same thing. I see you do not like it one bit better than I do.

I would refer you to your second post (post 14) on this thread, where you introduced the accusation that onyone who didn’t see it your was was going “against the Church’s beliefs”, with a similar personally directed accusation in post 17 - which certainly marked the start of you being called personally on the direction you were taking the discussion. Exaggerating what others have said later on is ineffective as belated cover story for initiating personal attacks and persisting in that vein through the entire thread.

This parading of 'strawman" is the last resort of the person who doesnt want to be bothered or cant answer a question. It is the constant ploy used here as a 'debate" tool. It is seldom correctly introduced.

Which of us can’t be bothered to produce a single citation or train of thought that does not rest exclusively on interpreting EV in a vacuum and is presuming that the pope is more aware of the technical capabilities and practical limitations of modern prisons than any combination of the States overseeing them, the scholars trying to improve them and the employees working in them?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I don’t know how germane this is but my experience is thus: death row’s are very secure. I’m not sure if there are any excapes from state death row facilities. I don’t believe so, but may be wrong. Max Security systems are just that. Few excape these facilities either. Few excape general walled prisions either.

We had one from Death Row escape sometime in the last 5-8 years, can’t remember off the top of my head. As far as escapes from maximum security units, some research into the “Connally Seven” from a couple of years ago. And just in the last couple of months another two overpower one armed guard and kill another during an escape while on a work detail at a maximum security facility. (If you think work details should be suspended completely, you’ll need to take it up with the federal courts)

Again, can you advise us of your attempts to confirm your correct conclusions with the Vatican?

Which of the conclusions are you talking about? The Church itself is still very consistent that it has no dictate purely scientific decisions about what is possible, and as far as the scholars making that determination I’d know personally several of them. Correctional technology is not a field in which the Vatican has a scholarly presence, so the Vatican would be an inappropriate place to try to get a scholarly confirmation.

 

[pnewton]

Actually this is not meant in any pejorative sense, but is a serious question for me. This is a pattern I see here wherein the Vatican, present and past popes of the 20th century, the USCCB, priests and relgious are routinely mocked here as not knowing Catholic teaching correctly

I have not questioned Catholic teaching once in this entire thread. I meticulously have avoided that, as any disagreement I ever have in that regard, I view as personal. It is my responsibility to try and fully understand the Church’s teaching. It is only the side of application I question. We must remember that punishment of offenders is not the role of the Church. JP II, while a brilliant theologian, was not a learned law enforcement officer, corretional officer or statistician.

ANd once again, let me point out that the CCC, as does Evangelium Vitae, does acknowledge the possibility of a rare application of the death penalty. We are not going against Catholic teaching.

 

[pnewton]

The best answer I’ve gotten was from a nun who worked with those on death row…she argued that you never know when a person will repent and to shorten their life before they have an opportunity to know Jesus is the real sin. Everyone should have their ENTIRE natural life to come to know Jesus…that was enough for me…remember the prodigal son? Should his family allowed him, what 5 years to return? 10? no, his father welcomed him whenever he was ready to return home…

Yes, but let me give you another spin that ties into the discussion so far. What if the same person shortens another convicts life out in the recreation yard and prevents him from repenting? What if he sends word to his friends to shorten the lives of witnesses of this death and prevents them from repenting. Does not the chance to repent his victims should have at least weigh equal to his own chance?

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know how germane this is but my experience is thus: death row’s are very secure. I’m not sure if there are any excapes from state death row facilities. I don’t believe so, but may be wrong. Max Security systems are just that. Few excape these facilities either. Few excape general walled prisions either. Where escapes occur are from minimum facilities, unwalled, unfenced, and jails. These not always, but usually don’t house serious offenders except those awaiting court appearances.

You are correct in many things and thank you for all your work. However, even the chaplains and ministers that come in are a source of security breach as are most rehab programs. I had to go back and tack up rosaries just this week where some chaplain assistant had passed them out. That was not a pleasant task. Then we have many ministers that are of dubious character, that deliberately have smuggled things in.

Also, not minister, counsellor or visitor has ever seen the worse. They are always removed from my place when the smell stuff hits the ocillating blades. I do however appreciate all that the various chaplains and volunteers bring to the institution, since most inmates really aren’t that bad and deserve a kind face and a chance to start over.

 

[Christine_Blake]

Yes, but let me give you another spin that ties into the discussion so far. What if the same person shortens another convicts life out in the recreation yard and prevents him from repenting? What if he sends word to his friends to shorten the lives of witnesses of this death and prevents them from repenting. Does not the chance to repent his victims should have at least weigh equal to his own chance?

That is like saying if we think someone “might” commit a sin in the future we should kill them before they get the chance…we can’t control that, we can only control whether our society kills. Of course what you speak of would be a tragedy, but do you really want to kill “in case” he/she kills again? By your logic we’d have a lot more people to kill - the death row inmates aren’t usually running around the rec. yard with all the others…

 

[pnewton]

That is like saying if we think someone “might” commit a sin in the future we should kill them before they get the chance…

I am not referring to sin, but crime. We are also referring to people who might not only kill someone, but have actually done so. This is not the same as pre-emptive punishment. No, death row prisoners do not mix with other, but life prisoners do. I thought you wanted people off death row?

 

[frankadams]

I have not questioned Catholic teaching once in this entire thread. I meticulously have avoided that, as any disagreement I ever have in that regard, I view as personal. It is my responsibility to try and fully understand the Church’s teaching. It is only the side of application I question. We must remember that punishment of offenders is not the role of the Church. JP II, while a brilliant theologian, was not a learned law enforcement officer, corretional officer or statistician.

ANd once again, let me point out that the CCC, as does Evangelium Vitae, does acknowledge the possibility of a rare application of the death penalty. We are not going against Catholic teaching.

Your statement is valid regarding the possibility of a rare application of the death penalty. The Catechism, as has been noted many times on this thread, reads thusly:


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.


and…


Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.


The Cathechism does indeed leave room for interpretation. And it does indeed leave the possibility of a rare application.

This tact, however, does make it possible for a Catholic to justify increasing the use of the death penalty in America to execute tens of thousands of people annually. After all, given how many posters have noted the possibility of escape, is there really any certain way to “effectively defend human lives against the unjust aggressor?” A good Catholic could justify killing all murderers on the basis that there is no guarantee they won’t escape and no guarantee that they will not kill again, even if they are paroled or released at the end of the their sentence. Attempted murderers could easily be included by this logic. So too could all those guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. Even strong people who are guilty of assault might assault again, and their strength might mean a weaker victim will end up dying.


I could continue this list indefinitely. The point is that the Cathechism does allow room for interpretation which everyone here defending the death penalty has pointed out time and time again. Using their logic, I could call for tens of thousands of executions and say that I am following the Cathecism.


The Pope and every episcopal conference that has addressed this issue has taken “rare if not practically nonexistent” as sufficient guidance to call for an outright abolishment of the death penalty. But most of the posters here interpret it in a very, very different way. Then again, as you note, the Pope and bishops are not “learned law enforcement officer(s), corretional officer(s) or statistician(s).” So their opinion on such matters likely means nothing to you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Your statement is valid regarding the possibility of a rare application of the death penalty. The Catechism, as has been noted many times on this thread, reads thusly:


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.


and…


Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.


The Cathechism does indeed leave room for interpretation. And it does indeed leave the possibility of a rare application.

This tact, however, does make it possible for a Catholic to justify increasing the use of the death penalty in America to execute tens of thousands of people annually. After all, given how many posters have noted the possibility of escape, is there really any certain way to “effectively defend human lives against the unjust aggressor?” A good Catholic could justify killing all murderers on the basis that there is no guarantee they won’t escape and no guarantee that they will not kill again, even if they are paroled or released at the end of the their sentence. Attempted murderers could easily be included by this logic. So too could all those guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. Even strong people who are guilty of assault might assault again, and their strength might mean a weaker victim will end up dying.


I could continue this list indefinitely. The point is that the Cathechism does allow room for interpretation which everyone here defending the death penalty has pointed out time and time again. Using their logic, I could call for tens of thousands of executions and say that I am following the Cathecism.


The Pope and every episcopal conference that has addressed this issue has taken “rare if not practically nonexistent” as sufficient guidance to call for an outright abolishment of the death penalty. But most of the posters here interpret it in a very, very different way. Then again, as you note, the Pope and bishops are not “learned law enforcement officer(s), corretional officer(s) or statistician(s).” So their opinion on such matters likely means nothing to you.

Thanks for a well reasoned post. I’m done, having said all I can say. Those who don’t agree for reasons that are not quite clear, will I guess continue to advocate that more states pick up the banner of execution. I don’t get it at all, it goes against at the least it seems to me the clear spirit of the Church leaderships beliefs on the subject. I was quite shocked that people would disagree at all. But I get shocked here a lot…lol…

It’s time to move on at least for a while.

 

[pnewton]

. Then again, as you note, the Pope and bishops are not “learned law enforcement officer(s), corretional officer(s) or statistician(s).” So their opinion on such matters likely means nothing to you.

This is an unfair exaggeration. I have never said it means “nothing” just that it is an application, not moral teaching and outside the area of theology. I have consistently looked for the foundation of their technical evaluations and asked here if anyone has seen anything.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The point is that the Cathechism does allow room for interpretation which everyone here defending the death penalty has pointed out time and time again. Using their logic, I could call for tens of thousands of executions and say that I am following the Cathecism.

The Pope and every episcopal conference that has addressed this issue has taken “rare if not practically nonexistent” as sufficient guidance to call for an outright abolishment of the death penalty.

We come back again to the very same errors of presumption that have repeated been repeated over and over by those in opposition to the Death Penalty.

1. Proposing that the CCC must be used in isolation without considering the times the Church has also pointed out that the state’s authority must be for the common good and must not overreact to be legitimate. This tactic is no more legitimate to construct an exaggeration of the position of one’s opponents than it is to advocate one’s own.
2. That someone disputing whether the Death penalty is still sometimes necessary is actually arguing for an increase in its use or even being maintained at it current levels. I know I have done neither, despite multiple insinuations that I have. .
3. That the Church has effectively revoked or bypassed the part of Natural Lawfully assigning to the State the authority to decide whether the conditions present there, based on either the crime committed or the probable future threat of particular offenders being sentenced, justified “rare if not practically nonexistent” use of capital punishment. It has not done so. It will not do so. It cannot do so.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
. Then again, as you note, the Pope and bishops are not “learned law enforcement officer(s), corretional officer(s) or statistician(s).” So their opinion on such matters likely means nothing to you.

This is an unfair exaggeration. I have never said it means “nothing” just that it is an application, not moral teaching and outside the area of theology. I have consistently looked for the foundation of their technical evaluations and asked here if anyone has seen anything.

It is unfair to say their opinion “likely means nothing to you.” Your very well-established presence on this blog would suggest otherwise. I apologize for the exaggeration.


I used the exaggeration to underscore my main point, which is that many of the posters here read the phrases “absolute necessity” and “rare if not practically non-existent” as the means to proudly assert that their enthusiastic support for the death penalty is in complete conformity with the Cathechism. They take these phrases to conclude that if we can’t be one hundred percent person the offender will not kill again (an impossible circumstance), then we may kill that offender.


I believe that the Magisterium had no such “business-as-usual” attitude toward capital punishment in mind when drafting the Cathechism. I also noted (in the above post) that interpretations using the same logic which you have utilized could easily lead us to mutiply the amount of executions expoentially, all done under the banner of “We’re following the Cathecism!” .

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I used the exaggeration to underscore my main point, which is that many of the posters here read the phrases “absolute necessity” and “rare if not practically non-existent” as the means to proudly assert that their enthusiastic support for the death penalty is in complete conformity with the Cathechism. They take these phrases to conclude that if we can’t be one hundred percent person the offender will not kill again (an impossible circumstance), then we may kill that offender.

I would suggest that you VERY carefully read back through what the supporters of the continued use of the Death Penalty have ACTUALLY SAID THEMSELVES in this thread rather than exaggerating the misrepresentations and exaggerations that other Death Penalty abolitionists have repeatedly hauled out in way of personal accusations when they were challenged with formal Church documents that undermined a basic premise of their abolitionist position…

 

[pnewton]

So too could all those guilty of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. Even strong people who are guilty of assault might assault again, and their strength might mean a weaker victim will end up dying.


I could continue this list indefinitely. The point is that the Cathechism does allow room for interpretation which everyone here defending the death penalty has pointed out time and time again. Using their logic, I could call for tens of thousands of executions and say that I am following the Cathecism.

No, because there is another principle of minimumalization. We need only to act when there is a clear, definable and reasonable situation that others may be in danger. In regards to manslaughter, that crime does not imply such a one is capable of organizing or committing premeditated murder. Texas has a bad reputation, but its theoretical reason for the death penalty is in concert with Catholic teaching. First, a person has to have committed a murder with both premeditation and one other factor (like multiple murder, rape and murder) to make the convict eligible. Second there must be evidence that the person is likely to commit more such violence in the future. The one thing I would change, is a stricter definition on the second point. Namely, some things which would present good evidence that one would be likely to repeat would be:

1. Previous first degree homicide or attempted first degree homicied.
2. Membership in a gang where one has pledged to kill for the sake of the gang.
3. Death threats against the witnesses or other victims.

You see, really, according to my reasoning, the death penalty really should be a rarity. BTW - I think you are right that we have to be careful not to use exceptions to try and establish a rule that we then use to expand the death penalty.

 

[frankadams]

We come back again to the very same errors of presumption that have repeated been repeated over and over by those in opposition to the Death Penalty.

1. Proposing that the CCC must be used in isolation without considering the times the Church has also pointed out that the state’s authority must be for the common good and must not overreact to be legitimate. This tactic is no more legitimate to construct an exaggeration of the position of one’s opponents than it is to advocate one’s own…

I am not suggesting that the CCC be used in isolation. But the phrase “the state’s authority must be for the common good and must not overreact to be legitimate” is equally seen as one’s own interpretation of what promotes the “common good” and what constitutes and “overreaction.”


We have seen that interpretations of “absolute necessity” and “rare if not practically non-existent” have varied from none (the Pope and the episcopal conferences) to tens of thousands worldwide (some posters here; not specifically, but I think fairly extrapolated numerically based on the fact that they justify the amount of executions in America on the basis of escapes and the fact that the vast majority of countries do not enjoy anywhere near the same degree of sophistication in terms of having “safe” prisons). So why not the same degree of variance with the “common good” and “overreaction?” Is it not still a matter of “interpretation” as so many here have repeated over and over?

 

[pnewton]

One more thing, if you scan back a couple of days, I readily admit that I get too caught up and out of balance toward the side of justice. It is part of why I do what I do and it serves well those who are under my care who are not predators but the preyed upon. Still, I consider it a moral battlefield for me.

I think when I get a chance I will answer one of TOME’s questions in more detail. What would it take, in my opinion, to safely house a group of harden murders where the odds of them committing any more violence would be negligible? I have hesitated because I know it will seem cruel to many, but I think it usefule to keep in mind our alternatives.

 

[frankadams]

1. That someone disputing whether the Death penalty is still sometimes necessary is actually arguing for an increase in its use or even being maintained at it current levels. I know I have done neither, despite multiple insinuations that I have. .
   .

I never said that those poster are arguing for its increase. However, the logic they utilize makes the point for them.


There are plenty of people *not *being executed who would be much more likely to kill again than some of those who are. Why would, for example, a premeditated murderer pose more of a threat to innocent human life that an attempted premeditated murderer whose aim was an inch off or whose victim’s physical condtion allowed them to survive the attack? The simple answer is:THEY DON’T! Therefore, by this reasoning, you should support their execution as well. If you have explanation to show my logic on this point in flawed, by all means, share it.

 

[frankadams]

1. That the Church has effectively revoked or bypassed the part of Natural Lawfully assigning to the State the authority to decide whether the conditions present there, based on either the crime committed or the probable future threat of particular offenders being sentenced, justified “rare if not practically nonexistent” use of capital punishment. It has not done so. It will not do so. It cannot do so.

I said no such thing. I readily conceded that there is an interpretation and application at play here. A Catholic president could use the death penalty less, as much as, or considerably more than it is being used today, and based on his interpretation as head of State as to what is “absolute necessity” and “rare if not practically nonexistent” and consider himself in conformity with Catholic teaching. I will simply reiterate that the current state of affairs in our country is very much at odds with the interpretations of our Holy Father, our episcopal conference, and all episcopal conferences that have taught on the subject.