Santorum rethinks death penalty stance

[Matt25]

Try visiting the Catholics against Capital Punishment site cacp.org/pages/585134/index.htm

Q: Doesn’t the death penalty deter others from murder?

A: There are no studies that clearly show this. Most murders are done out of misplaced passion, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is doubtful that many of them would be deterred by some future threat.

Q: The Church seems to be standing up only for the criminals, not the victims. Why is that?

A: We understand the enormous pain that those close to a murdered loved one must feel. Our family of faith must stand with all victims of violence as they struggle to overcome their terrible loss and fear, and find some sense of peace.

We understand that those who commit violent crimes must be separated from society lest they create new victims. We do not suggest that they should not be punished. Jesus Himself was not “soft on crime.” What He did was to shift the locus of judgment to a higher court, one that has absolute knowledge of the evidence, of good deeds and evil, of faith, and of things private and public.

Q: Isn’t the death penalty something that family members deserve, so they can feel that justice is done?

A: Vengeance is an understandable human reaction when great evil confronts us. However, as people of faith living in a violent culture, we urge victims’ families and friends to seek justice without vengeance, and to seek an end to the cycle of violence by punishing murderers without executing them. Not too long ago a death sentence was given to a man who murdered a doctor who performed abortions. This is a prime example of the cycle of violence.

Q: What other reasons can you give to support your position?

A: In addition to the faith-based arguments outlined above, one can cite many other problems related to the death penalty:

• It extinguishes the possibility for rehabilitation and compensation.

• Executions attract enormous publicity, much of it unhealthy. They fuel the human desire for revenge, which is not a Christian virtue.

• Recent news stories about the exoneration of over 90 former death row inmates show there is the possibility that innocent persons may be executed.

• Long and unavoidable delays in death penalty cases are harmful to local communities. They divert public funds from law enforcement and other more pressing needs, and create anxiety, anguish and uncertainty for the loved ones of both the victim and the criminal.

• The death penalty is applied in a discriminatory manner. The poor and minorities are more likely to be executed than those who commit similar crimes but who can afford better legal help. It is applied arbitrarily – almost like a lottery – when one considers that only a small proportion of the many homicides that occur result in death sentences.

Or the Holy See vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html

***DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE
TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS
ON THE DEATH PENALTY ***

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death…

It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value.** The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death. **

Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.

Strasbourg, 21 June 2001.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

So are you saying we should execute any prisoner who repents, confesses, and puts himself in a state of grace? This is a silly argument, IMO. Allowing a man to reform and then killing him is unjust.

The key is to reform them so that they may a)make reparations for their crime and b) take the mercy they have been given and put it into action in their lives.

Death row does not reform people. It holds them in suspended animation until the state arbitrarily decides to end their lives. If reparation entails sitting in a cell for the rest of their life, then so be it. They can accomplish the two things listed above while in prison. They cannot do this when they are dead.

 

[Della]

GoodSamaritan:

So are you saying we should execute any prisoner who repents, confesses, and puts himself in a state of grace? This is a silly argument, IMO. Allowing a man to reform and then killing him is unjust.

You too are sidestepping the issue of justice for the victims–the innocent victims who never got the chance to do any of those things before they were snuffed out.

The key is to reform them so that they may a)make reparations for their crime and b) take the mercy they have been given and put it into action in their lives.

That’s true, and I believe in reforming people, but I don’t believe in pretending they didn’t do great harm to innocent victims, either.

Death row does not reform people. It holds them in suspended animation until the state arbitrarily decides to end their lives. If reparation entails sitting in a cell for the rest of their life, then so be it. They can accomplish the two things listed above while in prison. They cannot do this when they are dead.

Those “in suspended animation” are only in that state because of the appeals that are made, sometimes over and over again, delaying justice in their cases. Sitting in a jail cell for the rest of their lives doesn’t necessarily reform anyone, either. Indeed, if a person knows the day and hour of his death he is much more likely to seek reconciliation and die in a state of grace than one who thinks he has years to do so and dies of a heart attack in his prison cell.

 

[Brendan]

GoodSamaritan:

The key is to reform them so that they may a)make reparations for their crime and b) take the mercy they have been given and put it into action in their lives.

Death row does not reform people. It holds them in suspended animation until the state arbitrarily decides to end their lives. If reparation entails sitting in a cell for the rest of their life, then so be it. They can accomplish the two things listed above while in prison. They cannot do this when they are dead.

OK, let’s look at the Timothy McVeigh case.

Which of those two things did he not do.

He reformed his life (sought Sacramental Confession) and made reparations ( Plenary Indulgence)

Because of that, he entered heaven.

Any person on death row may do the exact same thing. They still have a conscience while on death row, they have access to Clergy. And they have more cause to reform that someone who is looking at spending the rest of their lives in a cell block.’

 

[GoodSamaritan]

You too are sidestepping the issue of justice for the victims–the innocent victims who never got the chance to do any of those things before they were snuffed out.

You keep saying this but are using an arbitary standard of justice which is not Biblical or consistent with Church teaching. There are many arguments on the table about what the Church AND the Bible define ‘justice’ as, and they have not been addressed.

That’s true, and I believe in reforming people, but I don’t believe in pretending they didn’t do great harm to innocent victims, either.

I’m not sure how not killing someone who has committed a heinous crime, but rather putting him in a cell for the rest of his life is pretending that they did no harm. Remember that ‘justice’ entails reparation. How can one make reparation if he is dead? Reparation means to ‘restore’. How does the taking of another life restore anything?

Those “in suspended animation” are only in that state because of the appeals that are made, sometimes over and over again, delaying justice in their cases. Sitting in a jail cell for the rest of their lives doesn’t necessarily reform anyone, either. Indeed, if a person knows the day and hour of his death he is much more likely to seek reconciliation and die in a state of grace than one who thinks he has years to do so and dies of a heart attack in his prison cell.

I can’t disagree that sitting in a cell for life often does nothing to reform. But my question still was not answered–IF a person reforms, and then we put him to death, is this just? Would Jesus have executed the woman caught in adultery even after she repented? Since when is Christianity based on killing one who has repented? There is punishment due, to be sure. But I defy you to show a single Christian tenet which advocates putting a repentant criminal to death. Not even the Inquisition did this. And so, the state has a responsibility to adminster justice through just punishment AND rehabilitation. The second cannot happen if the first is unjust.

 

[Philip_P]

I think the question of victim’s rights is interesting, in that it goes to our concept of justice. Justice should be making whole that which was broken - if I break your window, justice would be for me to replace that window. I think this is different from revenge - you might be angry at me for breaking the window, and may act on your anger and hit me, but that is not justice.

The death penalty, to me, has always seemed to have more to do with vengeance than with justice. Suppose a man kills another man. Executing the killer does not bring the victim back to life, which is really the only way justice could truly be served. Frankly, I wonder if true justice is ever really possible, at least among humans (and I suppose that’s one more argument for God - if you want to believe in justice, it seems necessary to believe in something beyond mere human agency).

The argument of protecting society makes sense to me, but as I think some posters have already noted, this hardly applies in the US. We have adequate prison facilities; once a danger to society is incarcerated, the threat he or she poses is extremely minimal (maybe there are some exceptions which I don’t know of, but in any case a few isolated exceptions hardly disprove the greater point).

I’m glad to see Santorum change on this. It’s made me have to reconsider my opinion of him, and it’s heartening to see the bishop’s campaign is having some result.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

Brendan:

OK, let’s look at the Timothy McVeigh case.

Which of those two things did he not do.

He reformed his life (sought Sacramental Confession) and made reparations ( Plenary Indulgence)

Because of that, he entered heaven.

Any person on death row may do the exact same thing. They still have a conscience while on death row, they have access to Clergy. And they have more cause to reform that someone who is looking at spending the rest of their lives in a cell block.’

Once again, show me precedent that the Church (or Jesus, for that matter) administered justice in this manner. One similarity between Terri and the death penalty is that, in America at least, an alternative to death is in place but was not used. Terri could go home to her parent’s care and live a long life. Criminals could remain in jail perpetuating the mercy that was given them.

I don’t dispute that people can reform on death row. What I disagree with is the inconsistency of having them reform and then calling their execution a component of justice. This simply is not logical, but rather it is unjust. The assumption that death of the offender=justice(especially when an unbloody alternative exists) just isn’t in line with the Catholic definition of justice, in nearly all cases.

Now how do you know Timothy M was granted a plenary indulgence? Did he meet all the requirements? Regardless of his state of grace, his death does not fulfill justice.

At any rate, I’ll stick with the Church’s teaching that capital punishment is not immoral in every case and that it has its uses. Can’t go wrong remaining in line with the Church…

p.s. Good night, folks!

 

[Fitz]

I think that in this imperfect world we have to allow for the jury that might be wrong. I don’t see the harm in life without any chance of parole. I wouldn’t grant new trials, unless very compelling DNA surfaced. Why do we have to kill the killer? I know it could be a deterrent. However, I don’t know how accurate that really is. If that were true we would have stopped all murders when we executed people.

I live in Illinois and the courts convicted many that were innocent, and we have had a terrible time sorting it all out. I personally have said this before on CA forums and I have been lectured by all the people that think I am wrong, but I don’t really like the death penalty because of this problem. Let’s leave it to God. Prison, work, and time to reflect on the crimes and to repent. The Pope thinks all souls are worth it. He must be right.

 

[Ghosty]

Personally I think that some kind of indentured servitude of the criminal would be MUCH more just for the families than simply putting the person to death. Sure, it wouldn’t bring the victim of murder back to life, but it would do more to aid the family who had something taken from them than another death would.

I believe that, in an absolute sense, the death penalty is NOT wrong. Sometimes it’s necessary, as in cases where a person simply can’t be contained and threatens the safety of others. What many of the higher-ups in the Church are contemplating, however, is the fact that we in Western societies find ourselves at an unprecedented situation in human history, namely a point where definite and permenant containment might really be feasible. If we are indeed at such a point, can the death penalty be morally applied?

Those that argue that the death penalty is, in itself, a crime against God are mistaken. Those that argue that, given our current circumstances, it is a further assault on justice and morality may have a very strong point.

Remember, vengence is NOT an inherent right of humanity. Vengence is not moral justice. Our society’s emphasis on vengence-as-justice is quite simply unChristian.

 

[Della]

Fitz:

I think that in this imperfect world we have to allow for the jury that might be wrong. I don’t see the harm in life without any chance of parole. I wouldn’t grant new trials, unless very compelling DNA surfaced. Why do we have to kill the killer? I know it could be a deterrent. However, I don’t know how accurate that really is. If that were true we would have stopped all murders when we executed people.

I live in Illinois and the courts convicted many that were innocent, and we have had a terrible time sorting it all out. I personally have said this before on CA forums and I have been lectured by all the people that think I am wrong, but I don’t really like the death penalty because of this problem. Let’s leave it to God. Prison, work, and time to reflect on the crimes and to repent. The Pope thinks all souls are worth it. He must be right.

The death penalty cannot be negated because it has been misapplied. I think, though that circumstantial evidence alone should not be the criteria for the death penalty. It should only be exacted in the most egregious cases.

We who are arguing for upholding the death penalty aren’t saying it should be liberally applied, we are only saying that the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil. If the justice system is flawed it is up to us as citizens to work towards righting the wrongs done by it, including the wrong being done a truly innocent victim of a flawed law, Terri Schiavo.

 

[Ghosty]

We who are arguing for upholding the death penalty aren’t saying it should be liberally applied, we are only saying that the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil.

But, given the very real option of permenant containment, when can the death penalty be justly applied? It seems that, given the alternative of containment, all cases of the death penalty being applied in the manner you are suggesting would come from vengence and not justice.

 

[Della]

Ghosty:

But, given the very real option of permenant containment, when can the death penalty be justly applied? It seems that, given the alternative of containment, all cases of the death penalty being applied in the manner you are suggesting would come from vengence and not justice.

Seems so, but isn’t so, not to those who understand the principles of justice exacted for the sake of the victims, who always get lost in these discussions as if they didn’t exist. Why is that, do you think?

 

[theTaxCollector]

Ghosty:

But, given the very real option of permenant containment, when can the death penalty be justly applied? It seems that, given the alternative of containment, all cases of the death penalty being applied in the manner you are suggesting would come from vengence and not justice.

The idea of ‘permanent containment’ overlooks the fact that ordinary citizens go into those prisons every day (as guards and other workers). Violent criminals have killed other people while they were in containment.

Are we being fair to the unarmed guards who have to deal with these dangerous prisoners? As I understand it, these prisoners are still afforded the opportunity to work out, and also given a certain amount of free time. They also don’t have any love for the guards. This creates a serious problem.

I’m not out for vengeance, but without the death penalty, you can never adequately neutralize a violent criminal, even with life behind bars as a sentence. Society cannot completely ‘execute’ (pardon the pun) the responsibility of protecting its members.

You could alternatively put all ‘lifers’ in solitary confinement forever and ever. Is this what everyone is suggesting?

Peace.

 

[Lurch104]

I would personally be able to justify a 100% anti-DP stance if life in prison really meant life (no parole, ever). Unfortunately, the anti-dp people are (most of them) also against life without parole. They seem to view accepting LWOP as a step closer to their goal. Promise the public that life truly means life, and attitudes will change.

 

[Philip_P]

I would still like to see an argument for how the death penalty furthers the cause of justice. How does killing someone uphold, preserve, or otherwise have any bearing whatsoever on the victim’s rights? Some might raise the point of punishment - the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate punishment - but that simply shifts the question rather than answering it. Instead of justice, now we are discussing the purpose and efficacy of punishment (which might very well be a useful discussion).

Would a DP supporter please articulate how justice is served, or maybe more to the point, what your understanding of justice and punishment are?

 

[jim_orr]

GoodSamaritan:

What ‘evidence’ do you want? The Bishop of Rome has authority to teach on this and is not subject to your arbitrary burden/standard. Here’s what the Pope said on it:

“Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.”

Where is the evidence for this statement to be true? I presume it means people will be protected from further harm from these convicted criminals. Where’s the proof?
GoodSmaritan:

See, the Pope is looking at it from an ETERNAL perspective. That is, he teaches that in order to break the cycle of violence in our world, the first entity that must stop is the state.

So, the pope is going to allow innocent people to still be murdered and harmed by these convicted murders to ''break" the “cycle of violence?” What is prolife about that?
GoodSmaritan:

Also, he teaches that the dignity of human life is absolute. And even though a person does not respect the dignity of another’s life by murdering them, this does not cause the first party to lose their intrinsic dignity as God’s creation.

So let me see if I got this straight. The pope is going to teach people not to steal by letting people keep what they have stollen from others. Is that the logic?
GoodSmaritan:

Finally, he points to the example of Jesus. Rather than condemn the woman caught in adultery to stoning, he said he did not condemn her to die. Rather than demand vengeance, Jesus forgave at every turn.

Neither did he attack "capital punishment’ either. Perhaps he was saying to the people that adultry is not a capital offence. Perhaps he was making the point that it was a sin instead, and maybe that is why he said those without sin cast the first stone. Perhaps it had something to do with the teaching that all Jews were sinners and they believed there was no way to remove their sins except by God.
GoodSmaritan:

The Catechism still maintains that Capital Punishment is not objectively immoral and that it is possible that it is warranted, in general terms. However, in our world, the technology and safeguards exist to sufficiently protect society without it.

Correct, capital punishment has not, isn’t now, and never will be a sin. But your next sentence requires providing the evidence to be able to make the second sentence true. So, where’s the evidence? Has the Vatican or the bishops provided the evidence, or have they just made the claim?

 

[jim_orr]

Fitz:

I think that in this imperfect world we have to allow for the jury that might be wrong. I don’t see the harm in life without any chance of parole.

Less that 2% of convicted murderers recieve the death sentence. With all the state and federal appeals, the sentence can’t be carried out for 10 to 20+ years. Mass murderers have more rights than Teri Schiavo had. Wrongly convicted people have been discovered, such as happened in Illionis, and freed. No crediable evidence has ever been presented that proved that an innocent person has beem executed.

The harm, Fitz, is in this “imperfect world” there is no way to really stop hardened criminals from continuing to harm innocent people, even when they are serving life sentences in solitary confinement.

Fitz:

Let’s leave it to God. Prison, work, and time to reflect on the crimes and to repent. The Pope thinks all souls are worth it. He must be right.

All souls are worth it. Let me ask you something.

Suppose an evil person murders one or more people and the victims were not expecting to be murdered and died without making a perfect contrition while in the state of mortal sin. What is the Church teaching in that circumstance? I don’t think I ever heard anyone explain it. Is it the same as anyone else dying suddenly with mortal sin on their soul? What about such people dying in an accident they didn’t see coming such as those people in the British Petroleum refinery explosion the other day. Or how about the people on those planes that were crashed by the terroist and the people in the buildings that were vaporized, what happened to their souls with mortal sin? If there is a possibility that they were condemned to Hell, why should a mass murderer who may have been responsible for their deaths be given more than 20 years to repent and allowed to die in the state of grace and go to heaven? Where is the “justice” in all of that?

 

[tuopaolo]

One problem with capital punishment is that innocent people get hurt – I don’t mean people who are falsely convicted, I mean families and friends. This should be taken into consideration when deciding to apply the penalty in a particular case and also when deciding whether it is worth it to have it at all in our society.

 

[Matt25]

jim orr:

Suppose an evil person murders one or more people

There is no such thing as an evil person. There are persons who commit evil acts. But to say that someone is evil as such is to say that they are beyond redemption. No one is beyond the power of God to save them.

If there is a possibility that they were condemned to Hell, why should a mass murderer who may have been responsible for their deaths be given more than 20 years to repent and allowed to die in the state of grace and go to heaven? Where is the “justice” in all of that?

One of the wrongs commited by a murderer is that they prevent others achieving their God-given potential. Preventing a murderer from achieving their God-given potential is not a virtuous act.

10 And it came to pass as he was sitting at meat in the house, behold many publicans and sinners came, and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. 11 And the Pharisees seeing it, said to his disciples: Why doth your master eat with publicans and sinners? 12 But Jesus hearing it, said: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill. 13 Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners. Matthew 9

Christian virtue consists not in loving people exactly like yourself but in loving people who are totally different from you. If you do not love murderers then why not?

 

[FightingFat]

jim orr:

The pope and the bishops are dead wrong on this one. Show me one shred of evidence that they have presented to support their position.

I can’t believe this place sometimes!