Santorum rethinks death penalty stance

[jim_orr]

"Originally Posted by demolitionman65

So, what you are saying is that if we can’t fulfill our responsibility in controlling these people, they need to die?"

**
Demolitionman65, I am not saying anything other than the “qualifier” that John Paul ll used to modify the teaching on capital punishment in the latest version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is based on an assumption, not facts. Since the assumption is not valid, then the modification cannot realistically be promoted, and especially if the rational for such a change in the Church’s historic support for capital punishment is predicated on being consistent with our prolife position.

 

[chicago]

Alas, Jim has played his favorite trump card which he has been parading out for some years now; thinking that citing this one scenario proves his point across the board, and justifies his pet issue of hanging onto support for the death penalty. (Which, as he also illustrated earlier on this thread, is more of an anti-seamless garment thing which he uses to try and tear down liberals and Democrats; believing that any opposition to enforcement of capital punishment detracts from the due attention of overturning Roe V Wade.) Of course, what this article really shows is that this isn’t so much a problem with lack of capital punishment as it is a larger gang problem that needs to be dealt with on it’s own tems.

Hey, Jim, maybe I’d be willing to take you up on our proposed bet regarding Supreme Court appointees during Bush’s 2nd term if you’ll exempt Rehnquist (due to his ill health that I didn’t know about when making my initial statement) and just include the other 8 possibles. But it would have to include tickets to the ballgame, also, on top of the air fare.

 

[tuopaolo]

I believe “seamless garment” was coined by the late Cardinal Bernadin who is reported to have been a homosexual and to have supported homosexuals. So I wouldn’t want to be associated with him in that regard.

Also I think the concept itself is flawed.

I think ministering the death penalty has to be judged on a case by case basis. Given the condition of today’s prisons, it may be more merciful to administer the death penalty than to send someone to prison.

 

[Brendan]

tuopaolo:

I believe “seamless garment” was coined by the late Cardinal Bernadin …

.

And even he excluded the Death Penalty from his list of ‘threads’ in the garment.

And, in the very same talk where he coined the phrase, he expressed supported for the “classical position” of the Church, that the death penalty was a legitmate excercise of a State’s authority.

( Of course, to say otherwise would have been to contradict Trent, which is heresy )

As far as the rest, while I am no fan of Cardinal Bernadin, your comments about him were uncharitable at best. As incredibly poor as his sheparding skills were, his is still a Bishop of the Church, the office alone is deserving of respect.

 

[tuopaolo]

I don’t know. I’m pretty sure he was against the death penalty.

I read about his ties to homosexuality in this forum or one of the other forums. There were threads which had news articles about it and the evidence seemed pretty strong. I respect all homosexuals as human persons, but I don’t respect their homosexuality

 

[Philip_P]

I’d still like to see an argument for how killing the murderer serves justice. It seems that’s where the burden of the argument should lie, rather than on those who oppose killing.

As far as the argument that being FOR the death penalty is pro-life, that seems more than a little far-fetched. Of course the death penalty is not the same as abortion, but it seems pretty apparent that a consistent pro-life ethic includes opposition to aborition AND the death penalty, not either/or. It’s always been my understanding that the pro-life position derives from the belief that the right to life is intrinsic, not based upon any action by the individual (after all, if you really want to pick nits, due to original sin unbaptized infants are not, technically, innocent).

It’s also worth asking what happens to a society that supports the death penalty. What happens when violence is seen not as something to be avoided, but as an actual virtue, as those who invoke justice to support the death penalty would do? Whatever else you want to call it, the death penalty is undeniably an act of violence, justified or not. Is a thirst for violence something we tolerate, even encourage, without serious spiritual harm?

If pro-life is to be more than a mere legalism (i.e. discussing the somewhat abstract notion of whether the death penalty is a sin and ignoring its actual effects on our current society), these are the sorts of questions we need to ask.

 

[chicago]

Philip P:

I’d still like to see an argument for how killing the murderer serves justice.

A traditional argument in that regard would put forth the idea that the punishment must properly meet the crime in order for justice to be genuinely served and, therefore, nothing short of death for the criminal would expiate the wrong and restore right order in a society.

One counter argument which could be made to this perspective would be that, as the purveyor of justice, the state could legitimately mitigate the degree of punishment in a merciful act of clemency for some greater good; assuming that a sense of justice is not undermined and safety of the society can be relatively preserved by still enforcing a lesser degree of ultimate punishment in practice. The details of whether these necessary terms can truly be met is where the debate usally ensues from the standpoint of those who argue for it’s necessity in serving justice and safety.

 

[Philip_P]

chicago:

A traditional argument in that regard would put forth the idea that the punishment must properly meet the crime in order for justice to be genuinely served and, therefore, nothing short of death for the criminal would expiate the wrong and restore right order in a society.

Perhaps then it’s a question of our conceptions of justice and punishment. I can see how the death penalty could be argued as punishment, but not as justice, as it does not expiate or restore anything. Killing a murderer may fulfill a desire for vengeance, but it hardly restores anything. However, I would be interested in hearing the argument further developed. Also, shouldn’t the effect on society of having the state sanction such violence also be discussed?

 

[jim_orr]

Philip P:

I’d still like to see an argument for how killing the murderer serves justice. It seems that’s where the burden of the argument should lie, rather than on those who oppose killing.

While I disagree that it is those of us who support the Church’s historical teachings on capital punishment that have the “burden” to justify our position, rather than those who question or oppose it, I will offer the following answer to your challenge head on: “Punishment, in the proper Christian sense, is not a seeking of revenge, as some would portray it, but rather justice meted to those in proportion to their injustice.”(Fr. Stephen Torraco)

To read the statement in context click on the link below: which was kindly provided by Hildebrand in post yesterday:

diocesereport.com/myview/myview_park2_03_2001.shtm l

 

[jim_orr]

Philip P:

As far as the argument that being FOR the death penalty is pro-life, that seems more than a little far-fetched. Of course the death penalty is not the same as abortion, but it seems pretty apparent that a consistent pro-life ethic includes opposition to aborition AND the death penalty, not either/or.

The Church’s position is opposition to the intentional killing of innocent human life. Unborn babies and disabled persons fall into the “innocent” catagories whose lives may not be ended through abortion or euthanasia, regardless of the circumstances.

Capital offenders are not “innocent.” Capital offenders have been found guilty under the law. Less than 2% of those convicted of capital crimes receive the death penalty. Mere confinement in prison, even under the most restrictive of conditions does not assure the safety of innocent human beings. Evidence has been presented on this thread that demonstrated not even high tech prisons can protect innocent people from harm from the worst of the worst. Therefore, reducing the population of such individuals reduces the number of criminals available to carry out their evil deeds on innocent people thereby making it consistent with the Church’s interest in assuring that “innocent” human life is not threatened or harmed. Since “innocent” human life stands to benefit by executing capital offenders, supporting the death penalty is the “Prolife” position.
Philip P:

It’s always been my understanding that the pro-life position derives from the belief that the right to life is intrinsic, not based upon any action by the individual (after all, if you really want to pick nits, due to original sin unbaptized infants are not, technically, innocent).

Under the law, they are innocent, as are the disabled and severely sick. The term “prolfie” came about in the 70s by the opponents to abortion, a few years after the Roe v Wade decisions. The word “prolife” came about to counter the supporters of Roe v. Wade calling themselves “pro-choice.”

 

[Ghosty]

According to the pope and bishops, we are safe from hardened criminals in these high tech prisons.

They make no such claims. They say that we have the potential to contain them, not that we are doing it. The article you cited is a perfect example of the potential being laid to waste by Constitutional protections that are being misused. The article hardly proves your point, but rather only indicates the holes that need to be filled.

You show an article about how the prison system is blocked from its potential of containment due to legal loopholes, and then use it to argue that prisons are inherently flawed. Yet the article itself shows that there is absolutely NOTHING lacking in the ability to contain these people, except for the abuse of legal rights they are given. That’s a flaw in law-making, not a flaw in containment. I’m sorry, but you just aren’t making your case that prisons are INHERENTLY ill-suited for absolute containment. The article even makes the case that they would be fine if it weren’t for these outside loopholes.

 

[jim_orr]

Ghosty:

They make no such claims. They say that we have the potential to contain them…

Read what the Church said in the latest CCC:
**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.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor,** authority will limit itself to such means,** as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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.**NT

It is quite clear to me they are not talking about “potential.” They are talking about the abilty, “today,” to render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm.

I have pointed you in the direction to get the facts about the “ability” or, even using your term, the “potentional” of “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm.” In either case, mine or yours, the facts are that we are NOT capable to"render one" from continuing to do harm. You seem to be wiilling to contiue to risk the lives of more innocent human beings to carry out your theory. I am not. And I have presented real facts to support why I am not. So far, no Catholic has presented any facts to support their anti-capital punishment position that is in line with the Church’s teaching and** proves** that innocent human lives will be kept from further harm from the increased nuimbers of “lifers” that our maximum security prisons will have to house and guard.

I am simply pointing out that my support for capital punishment is more in line with the teachings of the Church than those who oppose capital punishment on the grounds of those same teachings. “Nonlethal means are NOT sufficient to defend and protect the people’s safety from the aggressor” as required in the teaching. I have presented more evidence for my position in support of capital punishment than any Catholic or bishop has presented for their’s calling for its end.