Question about the death penalty

[bjmiller100753]

bjmiller: If this doesn’t clarify, let me know

AndyF

I think I understand what it is you are trying to say and what it is you believe but I don’t want to make any assumptions so let me ask my 2 questions again. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

1. In your opinion, are the writers of the CCC, specifically the writers of 2266 guilty of mortal sin?
2. In your opinion, are Catholics who accept passage 2266 guilty of mortal sin? (More specifically, those who believe the death penalty is appropriate however rare those instances might be.)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

1. I don’t know.
2. I don’t know.

The minimum and only crime to qualify for pnewton’s theoretical prison is conviction of first degree murder; that is someone who is sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole or someone sentenced to death.

I read " I said I would give my opinion on what it would take to house high risk, violent, homicidal inmates for life. " ? That would not describe most convicted of first degree murder

 

[bjmiller100753]

I read " I said I would give my opinion on what it would take to house high risk, violent, homicidal inmates for life. " ? That would not describe most convicted of first degree murder

You may read or interpret what you like. That does not make your read or interpretation correct. This thread is about the death penalty. I would be absolutely stunned if any DA in any court in this country pursued 1st degree murder charges for either of the examples you gave. Therefore, to me, they were not germane to this discussion and I did not bother to try and answer them further. If my description of who I believe would be housed in pnewton’s theoretical prison was confusing, I apologize. Let me see if I can clarify. Any person sentenced to death in those states that still have the death penalty. Any person sentenced to life in prison who otherwise would have been given the death penalty but lives in a state that does not allow it. Those and only those would be housed in the prison described.

 

[pnewton]

Wow
… The plan mentioned seems improper to me

Me, too, which is why it is only an exercise. It is my opinion of an alternative to capital punishment that would prevent further harm. Realize that it would only apply to those who would otherwise be put to death.

 

[TOME]

Ender,
In regards to post 288, I have acknowledged that current Church teachings in keeping with tradition Church teachings, as you and others have provided, does not deny the right of the State of its exercise of the Death Penalty. So we are in agreement on this.

However, as I see it the question must move to what is the prudent exercise of this right in light of what will produce the greatest common good, which is, after all, the nature of the State atleast according to tradition Catholic teaching?

Does having a right automatically makes it necessary to exercise this right or could a great good be acheived by not exercising this right? And isn’t this the present teaching of the Church in regards to the death penalty, that is, given the the forces which are active on the moral character of today’s societies, a greater good will be acheived by not exercising this right?

Why is there the failure in this thread to address the death penalty from this perspective, especially in light of the acknowledgement that the right exist?

This leads to another reason why I disagree with your position. It only addresses doctrines but fails to look beyond the doctrine (laws if you will) to study the moral principles upon which these doctrines are based. In the theology of the Church, doctrines and laws are based on moral principles not the other way around. To based moral principles (laws) on human laws is known as “Legal Positivism” which is condemned by the Church.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… I would be absolutely stunned if any DA in any court in this country pursued 1st degree murder charges for either of the examples you gave. Therefore, …

***Well, on April 8, 1997, a jury in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, came back with a first degree murder conviction in a DUI case involving a traffic accident with two deaths. They recommended a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty.***
azduiatty.com/the-death-penalty-for-dui.htm

 

[pnewton]

***Well, on April 8, 1997, a jury in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, came back with a first degree murder conviction in a DUI case involving a traffic accident with two deaths. They recommended a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. ***

The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty.
azduiatty.com/the-death-penalty-for-dui.htm

That is shocking and very much out of proportion for the crime. MADD gone mad. In any case, there would be no reason to equate an alcoholic with an ongoing violent murderer, at least as far as housing them goes.

 

[bjmiller100753]

***Well, on April 8, 1997, a jury in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, came back with a first degree murder conviction in a DUI case involving a traffic accident with two deaths. They recommended a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty.***
azduiatty.com/the-death-penalty-for-dui.htm

You left out a couple of things. 1. You neglected to mention that your source for this information was a DUI Defense Lawyer who could never be accused of fear mongering to try and drum up more business. 2. And you, just like he, either failed to do any follow-up or chose to ignore what happened later. The court eventually overturned the murder conviction, but left standing drunk driving conviction and Jones remains in prison. In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the felony-murder law could not be used in impaired-driving cases. Allowing such application, the judges explained, could result in capital charges in other cases of criminal negligence that resulted in death.

I will reiterate, this is a thread about the death penalty. If you’d care to debate the merits of drunk driving on another thread, I’d be more than happy to meet you there.

 

[pnewton]

After researching the DUI case, I think long imprisonment might have been in order, though, to keep him from killing the next person he met on the road. He was on drugs and alcohol, his third time for DUI and he already had a near accident but had kept on trying to drive. This still should be manslaughter, but with a maximum sentence.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You left out a couple of things. 1. You neglected to mention that your source for this information was a DUI Defense Lawyer who could never be accused of fear mongering to try and drum up more business. 2. And you, just like he, either failed to do any follow-up or chose to ignore what happened later. The court eventually overturned the murder conviction, but left standing drunk driving conviction and Jones remains in prison. In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the felony-murder law could not be used in impaired-driving cases. Allowing such application, the judges explained, could result in capital charges in other cases of criminal negligence that resulted in death.

I will reiterate, this is a thread about the death penalty. If you’d care to debate the merits of drunk driving on another thread, I’d be more than happy to meet you there.

Actually what was left out was “I would be absolutely stunned if any DA in any court in this country pursued 1st degree murder charges for either of the examples you gave”- bjmiller100753
but it was not I who left it out.

Additionally more than 120 people have been exonerated from death row. This shows a considerable difference between being convicted of first degree murder and being too dangerous to be allowed to live.

 

[bjmiller100753]

Additionally more than 120 people have been exonerated from death row.

120? Exonerated this year, this decade, last century? Exonerated in this country, this continent or worldwide? Additionally, please share your sources as you did by sharing the DUI-sympathetic defense lawyer in one of your previous posts. Don’t take it personally that I like to check facts for myself. I also check the sources of people with whom I agree.

 

[pnewton]

Amnesty international reports 125 wrongful convictions since 1973. They are not exonerations though, just convictions overturned based on a variety of factors.

 

[bjmiller100753]

Amnesty international reports 125 wrongful convictions since 1973. They are not exonerations though, just convictions overturned based on a variety of factors.

And Amnesty International only provides 5 examples; they do not reference source material for the 125 they claim. However, assuming the 125 claim is correct it appears from the few examples given the the majority of overturned convictions are based on DNA evidence. Unlike others who cite the 125 as a reason to abolish the DP, my conclusion would only be that the criteria used to hand down the DP must be more stringent and must include DNA evidence.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And Amnesty International only provides 5 examples; they do not reference source material for the 125 they claim. However, assuming the 125 claim is correct it appears from the few examples given the the majority of overturned convictions are based on DNA evidence. Unlike others who cite the 125 as a reason to abolish the DP, my conclusion would only be that the criteria used to hand down the DP must be more stringent and must include DNA evidence.

rather than list the names here, I’ll post a link
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

 

[AndyF]

This does not, never has, never will refer to all taking of life. The very God who dictated these words also gave a death penalty in the same law. The Church does not base its opposition to the death penalty on this commandment and, in fact, had its own death penalty statutes.

I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it is a foundation we strive for. The context is punishment for crime.

In discussion of killing in a state of war, the foundation is what we strive for, the context being war.

As always circumstance is always considered.

AndyF

 

[bjmiller100753]

rather than list the names here, I’ll post a link

Thank you for the link. I reiterate, “Unlike others who cite the 125 as a reason to abolish the DP, my conclusion would only be that the criteria used to hand down the DP must be more stringent and must include DNA evidence.”

 

[AndyF]

I think I understand what it is you are trying to say and what it is you believe but I don’t want to make any assumptions so let me ask my 2 questions again. A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

1. In your opinion, are the writers of the CCC, specifically

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Unlike others who cite the 125 as a reason to abolish the DP, my conclusion would only be that the criteria used to hand down the DP must be more stringent and must include DNA evidence.

I agree, to an extent, as there are many DP-caliber crimes that don’t involve potentially exonerating DNA evidence (Timothy McVeigh, for instance, or killing a peace officer in front of witnesses, etc.). Certainly, anyone already on Death Row where DNA evidence is available that comes from a sentence prior to the availability of DNA testing where such finding would exonerate them should be given that opportunity without hassles, but there are very few of the condemned left that have not been given that opportunity unless new evidence has emerged fairly recently. Absolute perfection in sentencing methods has never been required by the Church as a condition the state must meet in order to act in cases where it determines the Death Penalty is appropriate; fair and based on the rule of law, yes, but not perfect…

 

[AndyF]

AndyF,
As I have written, contemporary Church teaching does not deny or reject the State’s fundamental right to exercise the Death Penalty.

It does make it conditional. This is very important as it presumes sentencing to always be in favor of life. The condition leaves it to the offender to live or die, so the choice is really the offender’s. You will note that a death sentence ensures that the condition never gets realized. If the Holy Spirit imposes this condition, who are we to say by society’s decision that His direction has no use.?

I think it is a generally accepted reformist view that the offender’s life is no longer of value. The offender can offer immense help in the hope of others through dedicated prayer in a pseudo-cloistered environment, and can be a benefit in the penal system if he so chooses. There are many in the system that have proven their change of attitude and spirit. How many in Purgatory who would have been utterly forgotten have been granted permission to heaven by that one intercessory request by another living and forgotten being who had nothing to gain by doing so? How many did God foresee and hope would change in spirit after 2 years only to have society ignore is law and sentence him in 1.?

excommunication or is a Mortal Sin.

Neither is final to the contrite heart. Such is the extent of Christ’s love.

Our participation must be rooted in our mature faith which means if we are to give our consent to the teachings of the Church this consent must come from the act of our intellect and will not from blind obedience.

So what do you feel is at risk that blind obedience to Supreme Authority imposes to His servant?

introduce a concept of mortal sin when clearly what has been expressed, as far as I can see, has not been in contrdiction of any Church teachings.

I agree. We venture in unknown territory when we try to determine who is in a state of mortal sin, and I think that goes without saying. I think it is sufficient simply to review the criteria and leave it at that.

The question has been the Church acknowledges the right of the State to exercised the Death Penalty,…

… if the offender poses a threat to society and there is no other option.

 I haven't read the whole text for a long while, and if I remember correctly it goes on to clarify that in todays secure prisons it would be unlikely that such a person could be a risk, therefore a very rare case to be at risk to society.

  Thanks for the post.

 AndyF

 

[Ray_Scheel]

… if the offender poses a threat to society and there is no other option.

 I haven't read the whole text for a long while, and if I remember correctly it goes on to clarify that in todays secure prisons it would be unlikely that such a person could be a risk, therefore a very rare case to be at risk to society.

What is your take on the discussion over the majority of this thread as to whether the Church actually has the ability to make such an assessment (particularly in light of the actual risks still present made clear over the past few years) and whether the rate at which capital punishment is assessed already qualifies as “rare”.